The first project
Liz Dunn began with a very small piece of the city
A December 2000 Daily Journal of Commerce interview introduced Liz Dunn as a former technology executive taking on her first multifamily project after studying architecture, planning and development. She described the small parcel, parking and unexpected site conditions as major challenges. Her ambition was to make a finer-grained contribution to the urban neighborhood. That early account gives the finished building a useful context: it was both a developer's first substantial experiment and an attempt to make a difficult, compact site support residential life.
Building within the boundaries
A tight site helped make the steel frame logical
Miller Hull describes a 40-by-80-foot parcel bounded by neighboring buildings on three sides. With little room to stage construction, the steel frame allowed rapid erection and fabrication of components away from the site. The design reached the 65-foot zoning limit and concentrated glazing on the north and south faces. The visible structure therefore has a practical origin as well as an aesthetic one. Looking at the exposed frame is a way of seeing how the designers answered the conditions of this particular piece of land.
The parking solution
Cars had to share the available volume
European-style stacking lifts made it possible to provide parking within the constrained footprint. Dunn & Hobbes records eight parking spaces along with approximately 12,000 square feet of residential area and a small retail space. The system belongs to the original architectural proposition: allocating less ground-floor area to conventional parking helped preserve other uses. For an owner, the practical experience of such a system matters as much as the ingenuity of the idea. Vehicle fit, daily operation and maintenance arrangements should be understood at the actual space being purchased.
The residential section
The plans use the building's depth and height differently
The architect's account distinguishes front-to-back residences around a compact circulation core from upper homes with mezzanines and roof terraces. It also describes a shared roof deck. That variety deserves attention when comparing listings: an open plan on one level and a home organized vertically can accommodate everyday routines very differently. Assess the path between kitchen, sleeping space, storage and outdoors, as well as the amount of enclosure already introduced. The original idea left room for occupants to shape their interiors, making later changes part of the building's residential story.
Materials without concealment
The construction became the interior finish
Dunn & Hobbes describes scored concrete floors, exposed steel decking and visible cross-bracing. A 2002 architectural review in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer also observed how the glass frontage, small balconies and roll-up doors animated the street. These are useful clues for understanding the appeal of the building. Its domestic atmosphere depends heavily on proportion, light, furnishings and the texture of construction materials. When evaluating a home, consider how comfortable you are with that openness and how much additional enclosure your work, sleeping and storage needs would require.
A later interior chapter
SHED showed how a loft could become more practical
SHED Architecture & Design documents a later renovation of one condominium here for owners who needed better storage and privacy. Extending a kitchen counter helped shelter the entry; a perforated-steel enclosure created a closet while retaining a sense of openness. Upstairs, a translucent panel and framed wall made a guest room and additional storage. The intervention used materials compatible with the original industrial character. It is a valuable example of adaptation within one home, showing how carefully placed elements can make an open loft more useful without overwhelming its architecture.
