By John Stark
If you didn’t get an invite to the walk-though tour of the Granary Building on the Bellingham waterfront a few weeks ago, you can check out video of that tour on the Save The Granary website.
The website also contains a wealth of information about the building and links to recent news reports here and elsewhere.
The 1928 structure is again in the spotlight as Port of Bellingham officials prepare to release a “request for proposals” that will invite developers to submit plans for redevelopment of the Granary Building as well as 10 adjoining waterfront acres that were a part of the Georgia-Pacific Corp. pulp and tissue mill before the port took over G-P’s entire 137-acre site in 2005.
During the Tuesday, Oct. 2 port commission meeting, interim Executive Director Rob Fix told Granary backers that the port would be receptive to proposals for renovating and reusing the Granary as a stand-alone project. A developer would not be required to take on the entire 10 acres in order to make a deal for the Granary.
Advocates for saving the Granary have said they think the project could be profitable for a private developer without a public subsidy, and port commissioners have said they are not interested in providing a subsidy. Until recently, port officials had planned to demolish the building.
Very happy to see that the Granary could be rebuilt without public money. I would LOVE for it to be renovated and the pdf I saw looks magnificent. As long as it’s a privately funded project I say two thumbs up!
What is missing from the pdf image are the 20 story towers that are planned all around it…
Actually, Clayton, people are saying that current shoreline setback rules would make the Granary itself illegal if that site were empty and someone proposed building it today.
Does anyone think the current real estate market will support 20-story towers in Bellingham anytime soon? You may be young enough to live to see it, I suppose.
Also, as I understand it, the thinking about high-rises–if any–has always been that they should be close to the bluff (not the water) in places where they would obstruct views as little as possible. But of course, we’re still waiting for a waterfront master plan. Wasn’t the draft supposed to be in front of the Planning Commission by now?
I think they ended up adopting something like 100-200 foot buffers on the marine reach areas in an effort to create “free parkland” along the water. But that was a few years ago so my memory is a little fuzzy on that.
And no, I don’t think we’ll see much on the waterfront that is above a story or two. Apparently it’s a bit difficult to build tall structures to code in areas subject to liquefaction (Mr. McShane has told me the GP site is)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefaction
Port people have always acknowledged the liquifaction issue but said there are building techniques that can be used to make the buildings safe–or at least, safe enough to pass inspection. But those techniques do add cost.
Is this what you are talkin bout CP?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJyPvTwNTnM&feature=player_embedded
Sign me up, don’y ya know!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Have to love the SPAM!
I love the spammers too, Clayton. Unlike some of the rest of you, they almost always have nice things to say.
This site truly resolved my concern, Best wishes! ! ! !
This web page truly taken care of my worry, Regards! ! ! !
An impressive share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a coworker who had been doing a little homework on this. And he actually ordered me lunch simply because I stumbled upon it for him… lol. So let me reword this…. Thank YOU for the meal!! But yeah, thanx for spending the time to talk about this matter here on your site.
Really good webpage, thank you so much for your time in publishing the posts
can’t say it in a better way, nice post