Is Seattle a 'two-dollar whore'?
Some more thoughts on, and an opportunity to discuss, the city's soul.
Recently, author Jonathan Raban weighed in on how Seattle has changed since the early 1990s. The story generated a lot of response, and it's still coming. S.P. Miskowski – blogger, playwright, former editor of The Stranger – has an insightful take on it over on her blog, Hick With a Master's Degree. She arrived about the same time that Raban did. She says to understand the city, you can't overlook Seattle's mercenary motivations:
The first thing I noticed about Seattle was that it was for sale – every inch of it. My ex-husband used to joke that Seattle was a two-dollar whore, and he was right. If you see something beautiful or even picturesque here, and you fall in love with it, just wait a few minutes. Because the guy who owns it is not cherishing its nutty appeal, he's merely waiting for the right price or a zoning change.
Ah yes, don't love a house or a building or a diner or a piece of land because it won't love you back. It all comes with a price tag. She describes how some years ago, a man sold a wonderful older building with lots of artist tenants, and the new owner began to renovate the place and jacked up the rents. Everyone howled about the changes:
And who was leading the pack? Standing front and center, complaining that things were changing way too fast and Seattle should remember what it was like in the good, old days? The guy who sold the building in the first place. That's right. He sold it, like a two-dollar whore, then he wanted a say in how it was redeveloped. That, for me, has been the essence of the Emerald City: The old sells out to the new, and then suffers regret. But regret, like nostalgia, is worthless.
Of course, that's the human condition in a nutshell. We're forever wanting it both ways. In western cities like Seattle, that phenomenon is close to the surface because change is so close on our heels.
I can closely identify with that seller. I sold my old bungalow in Kirkland a couple of years ago. I didn't have the resources to fix it and had compelling family reasons to move. So I sold, but not without regrets. The new owner flipped it, and it was torn down to make way for a bigger place. When I sold, I knew that outcome was highly possible, even probable. In fact, the inexorable transformation of my Kirkland neighborhood was part of why I no longer felt at home there. So like many of my neighbors, I took the money and moved on. I did so with mixed feelings. My seller's remorse lingers from time to time – but in Miskowski's Seattle, I'm just another pimp.
The full piece is worth a read.
On the topic of change – and resistance to change – that subject will get an airing later this week on KUOW-FM's Weekday with Steve Scher on Thursday, July 26, at 9:05 a.m. I'm a regular media panelist on the program's Friday week-in-review segment, but this week I'll be on a day earlier, participating in a discussion about historic preservation and nostalgia. I don't have a list of the other guests yet.
Weekday producer David Hyde sets up the topic this way:
The plan to designate dozens of downtown buildings as historic landmarks is provoking debate. What's really at stake here - beyond the buildings themselves? In The Seattle Times, Lynne Varner questions whether the city can afford to indulge the costly "nostalgia" of historic preservation. On the other side, Knute Berger of Crosscut.com says that the "preservation movement needs to come out of its defensive crouch and argue for the advantages of remembering rather than forgetting."
What are the reasons for (and against) preserving historic buildings, and other windows into Seattle's past? Where did the idea of historic preservation originate in the first place? What's behind the debate over preservation in Seattle today? Today we take a closer look at historic preservation, memory, myth and nostalgia with an eye to the future of Seattle.
The Lynne Varner reference is to her July 18 column, "Let's not get hysterical about historic preservation," in which she wonders whether "nostalgia" is running amok and Seattle is going overboard to consider landmarking so many downtown buildings. Oh, and she's not an Amtrak fan, either.
Should be an interesting show.
Comments:
Posted Tue, Jul 24, 9:01 a.m. inappropriate
_: It used to be preservation was about saving healthy, sustainable neighborhoods -- the sort we built 80 and 100 years ago, or 200 years ago in some cities.
Now you're talking about saving what's unhealthy and unsustainable. A roadside diner with a parking lot?!
Posted Tue, Jul 24, 9:37 a.m. inappropriate
What is worthy of preservation?: "Seattle the two dollar whore" --- Miskowski has it almost right except for the price. The fee for a roll in Seattle's real estate hay is much much more.
Seems ironic doesn't it that Americans spend millions every year visiting Europe. Europe makes a business of preserving old buildings and profiting while doing it. We seem to cherish historic and anything old on the continent, but in Seattle if a building is over 30 yr. old is vulnerable to the wrecking ball or TNT. Seattle's civic insecurity drives those who think they can become "World Class" only if they build something new and preferably designed by a big name architect.
We seem confused about what to value -- what is worthy of preservation and what isn't. Seattle School district is poised to spend 73.5 million to remodel Hamilton Jr. Hi. school when neighboring school districts build new similar buildings for 9.8 million. Will paying 7 times more improve test scores or reduce the dropout rate? Hamilton needs work, but will paying 50 to 60 million more to preserve Hamilton's exterior make Seattle more of a world class city or connect us with our history and make us better for it? It seems there are no simple decisions any more. You would think with all the highly educated people in this city we could at least establish a better way of deciding what to preserve and what really isn't of significant value. But maybe not -- maybe we really are the two dollar whores.
Posted Tue, Jul 24, 12:07 p.m. inappropriate
No room for nostalgia: I think Knute Berger confuses nostalgia with the desire for historic preservation.
Preservation has to do with saving things that have inherent value. The value comes from some quality of the thing being preserved: architectural style, craft, materials, beauty, etc. It makes sense to preserve buildings and places with these special qualities, because having them around makes city life richer and more rewarding.
Nostalgia is a sentimental longing for yesterday, for youth, for the world of the past. The passing of time is a tragedy we all have to come to grips with, but we shouldn't let it cloud our thinking about how our city can evolve. When Berger decries the loss of Denny Triangle parking lots, the Fun Forest, the Viaduct, or the Ballard Denny's - that's nostalgia talking. There's no inherent value in these places (c'mon, parking lots?), and city residents would be much better served by replacing them with developments more appropriate for the bigger, denser, less auto-centric metropolis Seattle has become.
Let's face it - every brick, stone and square foot of pavement in the city has sentimental value for someone. The job of historic preservation is to decide, with clear-thinking rigor, what out of all that is worth keeping. Leave nostalgia out of it. Feeling wistful? Just put on an old record.
Posted Tue, Jul 24, 1:38 p.m. inappropriate
RE: No room for nostalgia: I actually agree with your general point about preservation and nostalgia. One of my pet peeves is that some people believe the only motivation for preservation is nostalgia which, in most cases, is a yearning for a past that never was. I think preservation can be very forward thinking, as the Pike Place Market effort proved. But you also attribute to me views I don't hold. I have never decried the loss of parking lots in the Denny Triangle or even the Viaduct. On the Viaduct, I supported a retrofit to keep it going while we look seriously at a surface option, though I am not entirely against replacing it either. It all depends on what else we do. As to the Fun Forest, I suppose I am guilty there. As I have argued, I don't like the idea that the Center becoming a yuppie amenity and losing its Coney Island dimension. I may be nostalgic about it, but it's also a reaction to the spread of a brand of Seattle snobbery that drives me nuts. As for the Ballard Denny's, I am not arguing that it's historically or architecturally important. That's what people who know about this stuff are telling me, using the preservation criteria you defend. I am happy to believe them.
Posted Tue, Jul 24, 2:31 p.m. inappropriate
Best headline yet: That's a great metaphor, but I see her more as a wild beauty stuck living in a trailor with a cheap, possessive husband who won't buy her anything for fear she might get "uppity".
How about a pretty new baseball stadium? "Hell no!"
A beautiful new park in the center of the city? "Damned if I'm paying for that vanity project!"
How about a nice tunnel to highlight her beautiful waterfront? "That waterfront ain't worth a dime! Now get yer head out of clouds, missy, and fetch me a beer."
Posted Tue, Jul 24, 2:44 p.m. inappropriate
RE: No room for nostalgia: I'm at a loss to explain why so many people support tearing the Fun Forest down. An amusement park is a perfect use of that space, even if they turn the rest of the Center into a park. Even Central Park has a carousel!
Perhaps the real problem is how the place is run. They need to stop charging per ride and sell passes instead - every other park in the world knows you make more money and attract more people that way. The place does absolutely zero marketing, so a lot of people don't even know what it is. And the rides haven't been updated in over a decade. If they push the Fun Forest out, they should find another group that knows how to run an amusement park to replace them.
Posted Tue, Jul 24, 4:20 p.m. inappropriate
RE: No room for nostalgia: That's what activists do: take a far-out position with the realization that it's farther out than most people want to go, or ever will go. Sometimes this helps them as it's a good negotiation tool. But it also makes them look "fringe", and takes away some mainstream appeal. They made the same error on the horrifically ugly film depository in Belltown in the late 80s, and the characterless PSE headquarters in Bellevue last year, both torn down for buildings that make the neighborhoods better, or soon will in Bellevue's case.
The Fun Forest could be ok, and I certainly have nostalgic (perfect word) feelings for a couple of the rides, which of course are still there 30 years after I last rode them. I would simply like to get rid of some of the underused rides and most of the price booths along the Center House. Fit it all into the northern half, aside from the indoor games center which should remain. Maybe buy a new ride every five years or so or maintain the existing ones aesthetically. Keep the yellow "extreme" thing as that's a blast at any age.
That would provide a nice-sized small lawn in places of the southern part. Small, intimate areas of green are ideal for the Center. I'd like a big green expanse where the stadium is, but let's not overdo the passive stuff -- the Center is successful because it mixes passive with liberal doses of active.
Posted Tue, Jul 24, 6:52 p.m. inappropriate
Fianally the Mayor has a viable Economic Plan!: What this city needs " Is a good 5 cent cigar and a Two dollar whore" Now thats a Seattle slogan that will get people to pay a toll to get into town. Forget "The Emerald City" and "Metronatural" The Mayor finally has a plan people can buy into..so to speak.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 7:47 a.m. inappropriate
Long Live Our Whoring Past!: It's gloriously ironic in this context that Seattle's preservation movement has actually protected part of its whoring history, in the venerated sense of the word. Just two blocks from the King County Courthouse, there's a bronze plaque honoring the Pioneer Square building at 3rd Avenue and Washington Street constructed by Lou Graham, the queen of Seattle's early madams, who brokered a deal with city officials in the late 1800s to let her continue her business unfettered. She invested in property and became one of the wealthiest women in town.
Without a preservation movement, it's very possible that Graham's house of ill repute, a typical Pioneer Square brick structure, would've been torn down by now, probably in favor of a high-rise developed by today's wealthy property owners. Instead, we preserved it to remember the city's long whoring past, and a bit of women's history, too.
Seattle has been a two-dollar whore since Arthur Denny moved his rain-soaked group from Alki to the shores of Elliott Bay in 1852 because the land was better, and the harbor deeper, thus making for better financial prospects. Preserving older Seattle honors our whoring past, whether its sins of the flesh, or the sins of avarice.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 10:13 a.m. inappropriate
KUOW Update: "Weekday" producer David Hyde tells me there will be at least two other guests on the show. One is Gail Dubrow, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School and a professor at the University of Minnesota. She's the author of articles and books on historic preservation including, "Sento at Sixth and Main: Preserving Landmarks of Japanese American Heritage." The other is Judy Mattivi Morley, author of "Historic Preservation and the Imagined West." The book includes chapters on the Pike Place Market and Pioneer Square. July 26, 9am, 94.9 FM
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 4:58 p.m. inappropriate
Seattle is not a two-dollar whore: It's a high-priced, high-IQ, highly resentful call girl, like Sigourney Weaver in Half Moon Street.
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 12:05 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Seattle is not a two-dollar whore: Seattle is an often high-priced, obviously high-IQ, good-looking principled woman who holds out for the best, sticks by her guns, and eventually gets what she wants because everyone loves her so much. She never sells out, though those around her may. Morph Patty Murray, Ellen DeGeneres, Maria Cantwell, Indira Gandhi, Melinda Gates, Joan of Arc, Oprah, Madame Chiang Kai-shek, Jean Enerson, Hillary Rodham, Oriana Fallaci, Kathy Goertzen, Michelle Malkin, Sue Bird, Golda Meir, Madame Curie, Lady Di and Wanda Wanda and you've got Seattle. Two-dollar whores and Courtney Love need not apply.
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 9:33 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Seattle is not a two-dollar whore: Well, I guess we now know who only has a buck-seventy-five.
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 11:22 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Seattle is not a two-dollar whore: Yeah, if you morphed 'em all together as in a Conan celebrity morph Miss Seattle would have to pay, let alone receive a $1.75 gratuity.
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 11:33 a.m. inappropriate
Historical Competition: Berger on Kuow, Shramm/Carlson on KVI or Dave Ross? That's some stiff competition. I bet Dave is up to it, but things are getting better and better.
Unfortunately I missed all three. More please!
As to preservation - we should be aware that government regulatory issues affect historic preservation more than they should. It would appear there is a bias in permit departments towards new construction.
Part of that is innocent - it is simpler to evaluate new construction - the standards are clear and one of a kind situations are very rare, and always include a big budget.
Historic renovation of a typical structure is the opposite. One of a kind situations are the norm and the budget is always tight. And unfortunately degenerating political battles can be the result - like abortion much energy is wasted which could be much better directed. Seismic requirements in Pioneer Square are a good example of this, though they might well be appropriate in this particular instance.
How about we focus ourselves on trying to save more buildings, and more lives - at any age instead of misapplication of what are supposed to be tested codifications?
-Douglas Tooley
Tacoma, WA
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 11:37 a.m. inappropriate
1.75: 2 points for McGann!
-D
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 12:18 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Seattle is not a two-dollar whore: Please! It's Wunda Wunda. And you left out Gertrude, Seattle's most famous crossdresser.
Posted Sun, Jul 29, 3:57 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Wunda Wunda: Was it really spelled Wunda Wunda? I never could bring myself to watch the show itself. The song "Wunda, Wunda is my name..." and her pointy hat was enough to send me running. And you're right, I left out Gertrude, although she's about as opposite a two-dollar whore metaphor as a good woman can be.