Non-academic development near the Riverpoint Higher Education 'Park' came a little bit closer to reality last month. Washington State University put out an RFP in December for a 5 acre parcel they purchased a couple of years ago [The Spokesman covers the issue in depth not once but twice, and the Journal of Business].
The parcel is mostly vacant land between the BNSF rail line and Spokane Falls Blvd, but it hosts a warehouse massive enough to send most loft-seeking, empty-nesters into conniptions. The Jensen-Byrd Warehouse is big [6 floors 120,000 sf], but its future use in WSU's 'vision' for Riverpoint is anyone's guess. In requesting the RFPs, the university did not explicitly state that the building had to be retained, and at least two of the proposals called for the structure's demolition.
If the building is slated for demolition, WSU can certainly expect to hear from the Spokane Preservation Advocates. With the high-profile campaign for the Rookery Block quite possibly in the bag, this building may be their next opportunity. The developer will be selected by March of 2006.
While we wait for this project to unfold, MetroSpokane took a tour of the Jensen-Byrd Warehouse area today.
This parcel is awesome! Your slideshow is even better. Any developer that would choose to demolish the Jensen-Byrd building clearly does not understand Spokane. Developing a shortlist should prove easy for the reviewers of the RFPs.
Posted by: CB | January 03, 2006 at 01:26 PM
Conniptions is right. I've drooled over that building many-a-time. I hope hope hope it falls into the right hands.
Posted by: Ben D. | January 19, 2006 at 10:10 PM
6 stories at 125,000 sq ft is paltry. The 3 story 135,000 sq ft expansion of Premera on Sprague, at a fraction of the landmass absorbed by the vacant JensenByrd is a much better use of space.
WSU owns the building. WSU owns the land the building rests on.
It's structurally a piece of crap. Historically it was a lovely building 50 years prior.
I noticed you have no slides of the interior and structural integrity of the I-beams.
If they can find a group of developers willing to gut the building, revamp the infrastructure, create a series of white-collar small corporations that offer various IT based services, products and future growth, combined with the rest of that complex where various plans including a small scale Pike Place Market then I'm all for it.
However, if the cost of restoration duplicates the cost of a new 6 story, greater capacity brick building in the requirements of WSU's standards there is no point in salvaging it other than to salvage materials that can be reused where appropriate.
We're talking tens of millions of dollars to bring the building up to code and provide the latest Federal as well as State HVAC standards, electrical, gas and other advanced infrastructure requirements.
The foundation needs to be tested as well.
This once majestic building should have been retooled and fixed 50 years ago. The fact it was never touched during Expo 74 is a tragedy. However, this can be said for much of the aging buildings in Spokane where an entire region of the country remained stagnant and watched Kaiser and various other large employers downsize and make this town nearly a one trick pony--medical.
Posted by: Marc Driftmeyer | February 04, 2006 at 02:30 AM
Marc Driftmeyer has obviously not been in the building that he says is structurally a "piece of crap." It doesn't have I-beams at all, but massive wooden girders that are as sound as the day they were installed. The building was untouched during Expo '74 because it was in continuous use and very well maintained by the Jensen-Byrd Company until WSU took ownership a year ago. It's hard to say what the code issues would be, but a historical rehab may be able to meet less stringent codes, or redevelop floor-by-floor at less cost than a full-building rehab all at once. I'm not sure where he arrives at the estimate of tens of millions of dollars to renovate the building, which is fully electrified and plumbed. The entire floor space of the complex is 185,000 square feet, not 125,000, in several attached buildings.
Posted by: Chris Kelly | August 31, 2006 at 04:55 PM