I could see how the "longhouse" is an architecturally interesting feature, and a traditional gateway to Ballard. The case for preserving the three much lower arched areas seems much weaker to me, and those lower areas take more than half of the building's footprint.

It would really be a shame to have a boarded-up building be the gateway to a rapidly-growing neighborhood. When it was built, the building made sense in its local context. No matter how much history it may have, it no longer makes sense in its current context, and leaving a boarded-up, run-down building on an underdeveloped lot seems to be a very high price for both the neighborhood and property owner to pay for preserving an architectural curiosity.

Tom Auer

Ballard