I know most people think I am outraged. I am. I’m really fed up with the direction of our city, particularly when it comes to housing. We’ve really lost the thread. The latest absurd thing going on is the “Save the Showbox” effort, a discussion almost completely void of anything edifying. And do we know the outcome? Of course. Compliant City Councilmembers and the Mayor will codify the performance art of Councilmember Sawant and do something irrevocable and ultimately unhelpful. Here’s an email exchange I had with a frequent correspondent from Portland.

He wrote:

Hey Roger,

I was just at a Pearl Jam show at safeco last night. It was to raise funds to help reduce homelessness. They were also advocating for saving the show box theatre from turning into. . . Well homes. I understand this disconnect is common and annoying but I also don’t disagree that certain individual establishments are worth saving. That is where my search for answers dries up. There are plenty of articles talking about the city council trying to save it but nothing that explains why it is or was for sale. Do you know why? I am guessing hat either they were unable to make a profit despite the supposed love for the place. Or it is a vulnerable building in case of an earthquake and it was not worth the retrofit expense. In both instances would it not make sense to sell the air rights? That could raise the money to either retrofit it or get them into a better financial situation.

Just curious.

I responded:

Yes, you’ve nailed it. I don’t have any inside information on why it is being sold, but you’d think the people at City Hall and in the debate would bother to ask that foundational question of the seller and the buyer: why are you selling this building and why are you buying it?

Getting that answer would lead to the solution.

The Unreenforced Masonry (URM) building problem is a serious one both in terms of safety but also in terms of economics. How does one pay for the retrofits? How does one pay for the retrofits and keep the existing use? Is there any subsidy available to do that?

Instead the “debate” is about, well, a bunch of other unrelated stuff.

The right answer if there is a public mandate to “save” the Showbox, is to sell the development rights (which requires a buyer who can actually use them, and that means an economical upzone somewhere else), an appropriate retrofit of the building, and a commitment to locking in theater use. Theater uses are notorious not money makers. Is the City willing to back a theater/music venue there? If they’re not, all they’re doing is preserving a building when what they intended to do is preserve the use.

Anyway, this is as much energy as I’ve spent on the topic. Maybe I’ll turn this into a blog post.

There are absolutely zero people listening to common sense on this issue at least at City Hall. So they’ll plow ahead and in the not too distant future my guess is that the use will probably run into an inevitable wall, be unable to make renovations to make it economically viable, and then it will be a closed, vacant venue enshrined in the land use code as a historic monument.

Good work Seattle!