Saving the lesser Seattle landmarks

Laws alone aren't enough to preserve our urban heritage against senseless destruction.

The Smith Tower in downtown Seattle. (Chuck Taylor)

The Smith Tower in downtown Seattle. (Chuck Taylor)


Last month, I attended a meeting of the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board, the group of citizens that sits down and decides which buildings and structures in Seattle are worth preserving for posterity. These include classic waterfront piers, the Space Needle, and scores of office buildings, old boats, grand old theaters and Victorian-era homes. At the meeting, board member Stephen Lee said the board is "trying to recognize buildings that are obvious landmarks." Preserving such historic touchstones is a way of holding our collective memory in physical structures so we can share a sense of history, identity, and place.

But Seattle is much more than old buildings deserving historic markers. While designated landmarks tend to be outstanding — "obvious" — structures (e.g., the Smith Tower), who protects all the lesser ones? Who's looking out for all the old homes, apartment and commercial buildings that are wonderful, functional, livable and charming parts of the city's fabric?

I was recently in San Francisco. From the top of famous Coit Tower on Telegraph Hill, two things struck me. One is that San Francisco, dense as it is, is a low-rise city. Four- and five-story buildings sprawl across the hills; big towers cluster downtown and in a few other areas, but they don't dominate as they do now in Vancouver, British Columbia, which has opted for wall-to-wall skinny towers. As big a city as it is, San Francisco suits people who are walking about: The sun is rarely blotted out by concrete and glass.

Secondly, I noticed how old much of the city is. Despite earthquakes and fires, the housing stock has great character.

San Francisco isn't the perfect city — there's not as much greenery as in Seattle, and it's even less affordable. But part of its undeniable appeal is its commitment to its heritage. It's not a museum, but it has the richness of many European cities.

Parts of Seattle also have this quality, but generally, we're younger, rougher and, lately, the wrecking ball has been swinging all too frequently. The pace of growth is altering the face of neighborhoods in favor of developers. We often tear down perfectly good old structures and replace them with newer ones at the expense of the kind of character that makes mature cities attractive.

A case in point. The evening I attended the landmarks meeting, three wonderful Capitol Hill brick apartment buildings, built between 1909 and 1936, were brought forward for landmark review. They were on property Sound Transit wants to use as a staging area for the construction of the new light rail line. Two of these lovely brick boxes, some with art deco or Craftsman-style detailing, featured affordable one-bedroom apartments, studios and ground-floor retail businesses on Broadway. The designs are in keeping with many of the other apartment buildings on the hill. In scale and age, they have that San Francisco quality.

But these structures weren't erected by a famous architect, are not particularly remarkable on their own and didn't meet any of the criteria for landmarks. So they were turned down by the board, allowing Sound Transit to proceed with its plans to knock them down in order to park bulldozers there. I suspect they'll eventually be replaced by mixed-use structures that will be less affordable and have less soul. Our grandfathers built buildings to last, using brick; we often build with particle board.

The landmarks laws are an important piece of the city-shaping puzzle. But they resemble environmental rules that protect only the oldest and finest trees in the forest and not the forest itself. To do that, we need a different development ethic that emphasizes the recycling of older structures and a determination not to tear down sound buildings that are already part of the heart and soul of the city. We need to apply public pressure to preserve use, character and affordability, not simply architectural significance.

Some would argue these old buildings are just the eggs that need to be broken to make a better urban omelet. To me, it's as though we're cooking up an overpriced plate of scrambled eggs.


About the Author

Knute Berger is Mossback, Crosscut's chief Northwest native. He also writes the monthly Grey Matters column for Seattle magazine and is a weekly Friday guest on Weekday on KUOW-FM (94.9). His newest book is Pugetopolis: A Mossback Takes On Growth Addicts, Weather Wimps, and the Myth of Seattle Nice, published by Sasquatch Books. In 2011, he was named Writer-in-Residence at the Space Needle and is author of Space Needle, The Spirit of Seattle (2012), the official 50th anniversary history of the tower. You can e-mail him at mossback@crosscut.com.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Sat, Feb 23, 9:58 a.m. Inappropriate

Saving Seattle: I grew up in Kitsap County in the '60s-'80s but spent a lot of time with my grandparents, who lived in Seattle's Mount Baker District. I recall walking through the neighborhoods and enjoying all those great old houses. Even as a child, I appreciated their architecture.

We had a photo in today's Tri-City Herald about an old Denny's in Seattle that was being saved as an important landmark, rather than being turned into condos. The building was pretty cool looking (and hadn't always been a Denny's), but as I studied the photo and noticed how old and beat up it was, I wondered whether it was worth saving - and what it might be used for. The more I think about it, the more I think that someone will come up with an idea that will work.

I now live in a city (Richland) that is much, much younger than Seattle and has a lot less character. I hope Seattle doesn't simply rebuild itself - and lose its soul in the process.
aperdue

Posted Sat, Feb 23, 12:55 p.m. Inappropriate

But why does the process take so long?: One suggestion I would make, to save more old buildings as you propose, is to speed up the process. An example is the current effort to landmark Freeway Park in downtown Seattle (disclosure moment: I'm president of the Freeway Park Neighborhood Association).

The Park has been nominated for landmarking. At the hearing, the state Department of Transportation arrived at the last minute and raised legal objections, contending that the City couldn't landmark state property or an interstate. Whereupon the whole matter disappeared into legal limbo and hasn't been heard from since.

What's happening are off-stage, political negotiations that someday will be revealed to us lowly citizens. Meanwhile, what do we do? What do affected property owners do? And then if the Park were landmarked, there would be at least another year of wrangling over what particular parts are (trees? benches? petunias?). And maybe lawsuits.

As you know, there are vast overlays of regulatory complications to building in Seattle, all of which drive up the prices. Maybe it makes sense to impose a time limit on the Historic Landmarking process, after which the nomination goes to an expedited hearing?

Posted Sat, Feb 23, 2:07 p.m. Inappropriate

A crucial moment for perservation awareness: I wish this stuff had been there for the Black Mansion or the old observatory tower on Queen Anne. I don't exactly understand how these buildings can be listed as on the HIstorical Landmark website of the city but yet...they don't exist!

Anyway, I really think that the eco-density movement needs some serious awareness that destroying everything for dense towers isn't always the answer. Sure density needs to be an integral part of future development discussion, but keeping the history of a city available for generations is as, if not more, important to development as well.

FYI: Queen Anne High School Gym is up for sale. Its not as old as the original building (probably 50's or 60's) but its a bit of freshness from the bland condos going up all around it. I'm sure there are tons of amazing uses for a big open room such as this. All I ask is developers be creative with existing structures instead of stamping off on the plain cookie cutter condos. (i.e. Ballard). Perhaps we could figure out some way to get the city to buy it or preserve it.
JoshMahar

Posted Sat, Feb 23, 10:55 p.m. Inappropriate

I'm lost: Knute,
Can you explain to me the difference between googoo in Ballard and buildings with the misfortune of their designers being lost or unknown? What kind of snobish nuthouse is this anyway?

You really got my attention when you started talking about old brick apartment buildings. I photographed many of them as a citizen urging Paul Kraabel to repair (which he did) the multifamily code twenty years ago. There are definite sets of them and they comprise a history as unique to this city as its original platting and first zoning in 1923. The later many of these buildings predate, others because of the over optimistic zoning stand all alone to this day. I recall an especially lonely, rather plain Jane one on California Avenue a few blocks north of Admiral Way, still blocking the sun of a tiny house to the north (actually who knows, that was twenty years ago).

In Squire Park there is a whole block of them each beautiful and different and all no more than 45' wide --unique because developers actually stayed in one spot long enough to make a complete neighborhood.

In the neighborhood east of St. Marks there is a row of probably four of them all a stately four stories tall, again all different all stunningly beautiful. Not too far away there are a pair of paired "Victorian boxes" modified for flats--over one's central hall a skylight sets an inviting entry aglow through the glass doors.

We lived in a very pleasant nondescript one, one of a pair, as a young couple many years ago on Yale Street in Eastlake. And before that a funny one on Boston's Beacon Hill, but that is another story.

All these buiildings are resilient surviving treasures, the success stories, whereas the books claim the average life of an apartment building is but forty years.

So, where is Anne Moudon and her "Built for Change" when Seattle needs her?
amfn

Posted Sun, Feb 24, 10:13 a.m. Inappropriate

RE: Saving Seattle: A couple of things. First, the photos of the Manning's/Denny's are somewhat deceiving. It was a thriving restaurant (a Denny's) up until last fall. The building was fully operational, but Denny's pulled out in part because they've been waiting month-to-month for some sense of their future at that site and moved on when demolition seemed imminent. It was immediately boarded up and covered with signs and graffiti--instant neighborhood blight. This has served the purposes of the owner and developer because it made the place seem old, broken down, abandoned. They have used the images to full effect to make their case against landmarking it.

On the other hand, from an architectural integrity standpoint, the place has issues--mainly, that Denny's gutted the original interior in the 1980s. And there has been more than 40 years of weathering, wear and tear and repair. There were also some extensive modifications to part of the roof when it was modernized with new air conditioning etc. However, the Landmarks Board determined that the exterior, despite this, had its essential architectural integrity intact. A building does not have to be in perfect condition to be landmarked, especially a commercial building. Secondly, many of the important interior elements are still extant and it could be wonderfully restored (as could the exterior). But the board cannot require this, and the owner has said they're not interested in doing that.

What could be done? It could be re-opened as a Denny's--the chain has said they want back in. It could be restored and revamped to make it more appealing to "new" Ballard: an upscale eatery, a nightclub, a coffehouse? It could also be incorporated into a new, mixed-use development discussed for the site.

The real question is, can the owners, developers, preservationists and the city come together on a plan to save the building for the long term? I know from talking with them that the preservationists are eager to help accomplish that.

Posted Sun, Feb 24, 10:47 a.m. Inappropriate

RE: But why does the process take so long?: Your comment raises a couple of issues.

I don't know if the process is too long or too short--certainly, if legal disputes are involved it can be interminable. I do know there sometimes jurisdictional and turf issues involved in the landmark process. I also get the sense that one reason time becomes such a factor is that many nominations and disputes only come up when the wrecking ball is set to swing, thus the owner is pressed to move forward for financial reasons and preservationists--often volunteers and private citizens who haven't been through the process-- are forced to scramble. The idea of the city pro-actively nominating landmarks was partly to address this problem. Why not consider a structure's status when there's no financial or deadline pressure to heat-up the proceedings? This, too, has proved controversial as if the city is moving to "take" private property.

Your observation about "what's happening off-stage" seems really valid. There are many land-use lawyers, preservation consultants, and developers who know how to game the system. They may have been involved in many landmark nominations and they know the bureaucratic and political terrain. Citizen activists have to learn it all from scratch on the go, and don't necessarily have the experience to know where and when to apply pressure, and when to back off, or what the next steps are.

In the case of the Manning's/Denny's, its fate now rests in discussions between the owner and city staff and will hinge on the financial impact on the owner. But it's interesting to note that both parties in these talks opposed the diner's landmark status. The owner, Benaroya, nominated the building because they thought their application would be declined. And the staff to the landmarks board recommended against approval of the designation. The board approved the designation anyway. Aspects of the process are very transparent, others are not. In passionate disputes with millions of dollars and a community's legacy at stake, it's tough to design a system that will give the winners and losers both faith in the process.

I'm starting a list of possible improvements in the process and would love to hear from anyone who has them.

Posted Sun, Feb 24, 11:06 a.m. Inappropriate

RE: I'm lost: The whole idea of landmarking is designed to target structures that are special in some way. This is not sufficient to preserve heritage because many buildings are worth saving precisely because they are not special or unique but because they are part of the community fabric--not old growth giants like a 400-year-old redwood, but more akin to flourishing salal or groves of twisted madronas. Capitol Hill's brick apartments, Seattle's bungalow neighborhoods, Kirkland's WWII worker housing in Houghton, the barns and chicken coops of rural King County, even some of Bellevue's classic suburban ranch home enclaves add real richness and variety, create community and hold memory.

Trying to do all preservation via landmarking and historic districts won't work. There need to be some other powerful tools--including incentives for developers--to re-use and re-cycle structures. This might also mean being more flexible in allowing owners to make modifications in order to update buildings or make them more financially viable.

A lot of it is adopting an ethic of preservation that is integral to how we see the city of the future--how we manage, allow, encourage and accommodate change--and yes, resist it. Seattle was a national urban pioneer in doing this back in the 60s and 70s, and we need to revive that and build on it.

Posted Sun, Feb 24, 11:36 p.m. Inappropriate

Finding the path of least resistance: This is a topic of great interest to me. I've written about it here: The Value of Tacoma's Old Buildings.

Through my experience advocating for historic preservation, I think the general population still does not understand it. There is much educating that needs to be done. For some reason, there is a perception about property rights in this country that you should be able to do anything you want with your property, even if it means tearing down a perfectly fine building eligible for the historic registry.

Historic Tacoma is working on changing the city's demolition permitting process so that at minimum we can encourage the re-use of building materials and at best halt the demolition of important historic structures. I've heard the stat from the EPA saying something like 50% of what goes into the landfill is building material. That's a lot! If we can prevent even a few percentage points worth of material going to the dump, we're all better off.

It's true, old buildings get no respect. Most people don't understand how expensive new construction is. Likewise, tearing down a building negates all the time, energy, and cost that went into building the original structure - even if it's to make way for a new "green" LEED building.

Also, new commercial buildings can negatively impact neighborhood character due to the fact that smaller mostly locally-owned companies get pushed out. Often, the only companies that can afford the higher rents of new buildings are national chains, not the shoestring bakeries and cafes we all love.
tacomason

Posted Mon, Feb 25, 7:06 a.m. Inappropriate

RE: But why does the process take so long?: The end effect of justifying stifling bureaucracy through various 'noble' intentions is problematic.

It does seem though that there might be a nexus of interests around historic preservation and design review. These are subjects of judgement. They are not subjects of formula - either logically legal or engineering mathematics.

They also require a FUNCTIONING community of responsive experts and responsible, self educated, residents.

I can imagine a design review process that does work as such that also serves to protect notable historic buildings and quality single family neighborhoods. I could also see giving such a FUNCTIONING body power of emminent domain in order to address unredeemed blight on specific pieces of property.

But as for now, it ain't happening.

FWIW, when I voted on the Googie Denny's votes were 2-1 against preservation.

-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln, Tacoma

Posted Mon, Feb 25, 7:13 a.m. Inappropriate

RE: But why does the process take so long?: The end effect of justifying stifling bureaucracy through various 'noble' intentions is problematic.

It does seem though that there might be a nexus of interests around historic preservation and design review. These are subjects of judgement. They are not subjects of formula - either logically legal or engineering mathematics.

They also require a FUNCTIONING community of responsive experts and responsible, self educated, residents.

I can imagine a design review process that does work as such that also serves to protect notable historic buildings and quality single family neighborhoods. I could also see giving such a FUNCTIONING body power of emminent domain in order to address unredeemed blight on specific pieces of property.

But as for now, it ain't happening.

FWIW when I voted on the Crosscut linked survey regarding the Ballard Denny's the tally was running 2-1 against.

-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln, Tacoma

Posted Mon, Feb 25, 3:30 p.m. Inappropriate

Ballard: For any readers who may not have been to Ballard lately, but who would like to see the destruction and tenamentization of a vital, living comunity with plenty of heart, soul and love, you can see it first hand. Drive through Ballard. Blocks of beautiful, well-kept homes and gardens were destroyed razed to make room for shoddy $500,000 gated townhouses (already showing decline after only a couple of years and a couple of owner/flippers). See the corregated monstrosities with nail salons (reminiscent of 90's california strip malls). Notice the condo canyons and over crowded residential streets. See the darkness, as the light from the sky has been blocked out.

Notice, too, that the people who have loved and nurtured this community, some for generations, have been forced to leave by rent-gouging landlords and money-hungry developers and "flippers" who view it all as merely a means of "creating wealth" by flipping. I swear the bankers and real estate agents use those very words in their hard sells, but not a word about building a stable, thriving community that will be cherished by future generations. It is as Mossback says--much more than mere buildings is lost by the destruction. It is our heart and soul.

See what they've done to Ballard and take heed.

The mayor will be gone, snug in his new job with the developers he's courting; the developers will crawl back into their holes in what ever corner of the country they came from. And we will be left with crumbling tenements that no one but a few can afford.
MaryW

Posted Tue, Feb 26, 8:02 a.m. Inappropriate

RE: Ballard: Arrrrggghhhhh! nothing frustrates me so much as people with good intentions who pave the road to hell, or at least pave the rest of the Puget Sound farmland and destroy the planet.

MaryW, I understand that you may have liked the "cute little houses" with nice yards, but neither the working class people in Washington State, nor the planet cannot afford the massive waste, social inequity, and sprawl that their preservation will provoke. Let me explain:

Every cute little house in Ballard that you save, will require 5 new houses in the suburbs, acres of farm and forest land paved over, 10 new cars on the road, millions of dollars in public infrastructure investment to support it, millions of tons of carbon dioxide emitted, billions of dollars in oil profits, countless deaths in pointless wars in the Middle East, and the eventual destabilization of the climate. . . this is not hyperbole, it's just accounting.

And the nice family who lived there will be replaced by a Lexus-driving tech millionaire anyway, because that quaint little bungalow will be worth $800,000. At least real people can afford the townhouses and condos, and can keep Ballard from becoming the rich, white-bread monotony of Phinney Ridge and Wallingford, Ravenna and all the other elitist single family neighborhoods of Seattle. Neighborhoods should not be tourist attractions, but places where people live, work, and play. And that requires density, a mix of uses, great public space and tearing down the regressive zoning code along with some "cute little houses".
jk

Posted Tue, Feb 26, 10:05 a.m. Inappropriate

AH, but JK, what SHOULD Mary do?: True, we cannot preserve it all, because to do so WOULD require paving the rest over. A few axioms remain true: There are more of us then there once was here. Not all moved here from elsewhere - demographers show that 5 of 6 new home/condo buyers are/were raised here, and are staying here.

Second, there is little new land we can develop without taking away what makes the place special, or adding huge infrasctructure like new roads, sewers, etc.

SO if do NOT want to build solid condos from here to Snoqualmie Pass, we do face building over current structures. The problem is when places like Mannings gets torn down, what goes up in its place is ALSO unaffordable for most of us. Most ALL of the new building is beyond affordablility, either by marketplace greed (you NEED 4,000 square feet to raise a kid?!?!), or by capitalism (the bank will not lend me development money unless I get at least X dollars back on rebuilding).

As noted elsewhere, when they tear down the Post WWII bungalow and put up two NEW homes in its place, the cost of permits, design, contractors, etc costs the same minimum, so yes, we up the density, but the two NEW homes in place of one are also at much higher price not JUST because we can, but because we need to. We only get to redevelop this land every 50 years or so, so why not get the most for your money. Ergo, we have met the enemy, and they is us.

Unless you have non profits doing the development, you have no incentive to build two new simple, smaller homes where one used to stand.

Point being, preservation is not the reason for being priced out of a new home. Right now, if we sold our house, we could never afford to buy another in Seattle. Period. If our goal was to settle in Tacoma, or Cle Elum, or Enumclaw, that would be great. We could afford a simple, working class home. They are still being built in these places for folks NOT planning to work in Seattle, or those who can afford the Commute.

Of the hundreds of thousands of structures in the city, a very very small percentage are official landmarks, and even if all those that should and could did become such, the fact is market forces still jack up the price.

If we abandoned ALL restrictions (as some developers seem to wish) you destroy the reason you liked the place initially. It pains me to see the mondo development in the hills near Snoqualmie... but it pains me more to realize I cannot afford to live there, either (not because I would, but because even new housing that far away is still too pricey for me to afford)...

Once you build the homes, those folks demand to have their ammenities nearby, and the cycle continues... A new Target and Starbucks where Bambi used to roam... At least when my Dad used to say that about Bellevue (he used to ride horses near where Bellevue Square stands), he could still drive 20 minutes and be out of the city (generally, once past front street in Issaquah!)

I don't have the answer, but I do feel that preservation is both a good idea, and has little direct impact on why Mary, You and I cannot afford to live here...

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »