Goodbye, Googie?
Seattle's landmarks staff recommends pulling the plug on a Ballard diner, an example of Googie-style architecture, that had been designated for preservation.
A May 19 memo from Seattle historic preservation officer Karen Gordon and city Landmarks Board staffer Elizabeth Chave recommends a course of action that would result in the demolition of the Ballard Manning's/Denny's diner, which was designated an historic landmark in February.
The city landmarks board voted to save the diner after the owners of the property, an arm of developer Benaroya, submitted a landmark nomination in the hope that it would be declined. However, after testimony and public outcry, the board went ahead and dubbed the diner a landmark in a 6-3 vote, despite misgivings by city staff. Preservationists have argued that the diner was built by an important Bay Area modern architect, Clarence W. Mayhew (first reported here on Crosscut), and that it is an excellent example of 1960s Googie-style roadside architecture.
The next step is to negotiate a "controls and incentives" agreement that will determine what exactly would be preserved, if anything. The staff recommendation would allow the wrecking ball to swing. That agreement will be on the agenda of the Landmarks Board on May 21. Benaroya has said it will press a lawsuit against the city if the designation is not overturned. The lawsuit challenges the landmark decision and the entire landmarking process in the city.
In their memo to the board, Gordon and Chave say they have met with the owner at least four times and are convinced that there is no scenario in which the "character defining features" of the building can be preserved without "compromising their ability to realize a reasonable return on their investment." Part of the problem, they say, was the high price paid for the land in expectation that it could be developed. Benaroya paid some $12.5 million for the property after it was sold off by the defunct Seattle Monorail Project.
Supporters of the diner complain that the owner and developer have not seriously considered truly creative and collaborative approaches to adapting the building for a new use and by seeking to increase the height and density of the project through a re-zone. Benaroya has been clear from the beginning that it wanted to tear the building down and does not think it worthy of landmark status. In addition, the company's lawsuit claims the entire process is illegal and unconstitutional. The original landmark nomination was designed to put the building in the worst possible light, and Benaroya representatives previously have said that if the landmark designation stands, they will let the property fall into blight.
According to the memo, the Landmarks Board now has two options. One is to approve a "controls and incentives" agreement approved by Gordon and Chave that will not protect the building. the other is to forward their own recommendations to a city hearing examiner, who would decide the matter.
Support for saving the diner has come from local preservation groups like Historic Seattle, DoCoMoMo-WeWA, and the grassroots group Save Mannings. The battle over it has generated national publicity, including stories in Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, and Preservation magazine. It has sparked discussion about the preservation of modern structures and a debate over the city's own landmarks process. Critics have decried it as a case of overreach, while many preservationists have strongly defended the landmark designation.
Comments:
Posted Tue, May 20, 10:54 a.m. inappropriate
A failure of the democratic process. A time for new leadership?: The City of Seattle's Landmark process is a democratic process. It is driven by the people. To date, the process has been a true demonstration of that democratic process with an outpouring of support from the community. The Landmarks preservation Board is to be commended for their careful and thoughtful decision to make the Ballard Manning's a Seattle Landmark.
One disturbing part of the process has been the very public disregard for the Board by the City's Historic Preservation Officer Karen Gordon. All along she has objected to the Board's nomination and designation and now appears to be retaliating. In my experience, staff positions within the City support the work of volunteer boards and commissions. The City's use of boards and commissions is an extension of its public and democratic process ensuring there is a balance in decision making so that one single person does not have absolute control. Staff may not always agree with the decision, but it is their responsibility to implement the Board's decision. Clearly Ms. Gordon does not support the idea of power sharing or democratic process.
Historic preservation is a challenging arena. It often, if not always, requires creative thinking to successfully repurpose or adaptively re-use a landmark. One such creative proposal has been brought forth for this site, however, the owners have resisted any other option than their initial development plan to scrape the lot bare and build a new structure. It is surprising that they have not developed any alternate plans especially since they have been advised since last summer (and by then by their own preservation consultant) that the building met one or more of the Landmark Ordinance's criteria. Even after hearing the Landmark Preservation Board's decisions at both the nomination and designation hearings, the owner continued to assert they had no alternate plans for the site and would not consider any other solution. It's strange they would be so confident and shortsighted with such a significant $12.5 million asset at risk.
One has to wonder if Ms. Gordon really worked on the City's behalf to negotiate controls and incentives. She certainly did not appropriately or adequately support or respect the democratic process or the people of Seattle in this instance. Perhaps it is time for new leadership in the City's Historic Preservation program.
Posted Tue, May 20, 1:20 p.m. inappropriate
A Vindication (Unfortunately) of the Landmarking Process: Fremont's comments are complete and total nonsense. While the Gordon report is saddening for supporters of preservation, it puts the lie to critics who claim that the landmarking process runs roughshod over property owners rights. Art Skolnik and his supporters were likely expecting that staff would underhandedly come up with a scenario--any scenario--to save the restaurant, maybe even cook the numbers. If Mossback's reporting is accurate, it seems clear that Gordon saw that Benaroya was right; keeping the restaurant doesn't pencil out, especially in light of the ridiculous rises in property values.
We are, in fact, seeing a vindication of a democratic process that relies on checks and balances and professional judgement. Fremont seems to equate democracy with mob rule. If the Landmarks Board rejects the report, some resignations ought to come from the board, not from staff.
Posted Tue, May 20, 7:25 p.m. inappropriate
Solution: The solution is easy. If people want to keep it, have them raise $12.5 million dollars to buy it from the developers. If it's not worth $12.5 million dollars, let them tear it down. How can anyone complain if they're not willing to fork over the cash?
Posted Wed, May 21, 6:50 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Solution: This is not a "solution" but a canard. If this concept were applied to every landmark designation, NOTHING would ever be saved, because no one could ever raise the money, except for the wealthy, who live in Medina. Developers would run even more roughshod over neighborhoods than they do now. Hello! Somebody prescribe david2 a reality pill!
Posted Wed, May 21, 6:56 a.m. inappropriate
Some Googie is Great: With all that has been written about Googie architecture over the past few months I got to wondering if there were any Googie buildings that I really liked. Then I remembered Eero Saarinen's TWA Terminal at Idlewild Airport now known as Terminal 5 at JFK Airport. Most recently it has been used by Jet Blue, but now that they have ceased operation who knows what will become of it. If you have forgotten how good it looked or have never seen it you should Google Images "TWA terminal" to see many great exterior and interior views of that building.
Posted Wed, May 21, 8:05 a.m. inappropriate
Slings & Arrows: Watching the debate between Art Skolnik and Karen Gordon reminds me of the line by a pundit who said if she gave-up one ball, then they would both have two.
The Preservation Officer is one of the few world-class talents in the cultural community who Seattle has been able to keep - so many leave town for cities that have standards and understand quality.
The preservation office boards and commissions rely on good staff work and they are getting it -- even when the recommendations are controversial and gutsy.
Posted Wed, May 21, 9:39 a.m. inappropriate
some resignations ought to come from the board, not from staff.: Flag, I disagree with you on a lot but you are certainly right on the board. They let themselves be stampeded into an obvious bad choice. Dumb building, mediocre architect and enthusiastic folks in the bleachers (including the otherwise sensible Knute).
Posted Wed, May 21, 10:59 a.m. inappropriate
The Board: The Landmark's Preservation Board has acted with the highest level of commitment to, and discernment of, the Ordinance and ultimately to the Board's purpose to set aside important Seattle Landmarks.
Had those commenting in this blog taken the opportunity to become informed on the topic of Modern architecture, you all would have attended last evening's lecture given by Alan Hess, an authority on mid-century architecture and the author of several books on Googie architecture.
According to Alan Hess: The Ballard Manning's is definitely Googie–and a good example; Googie is an important Modern architectural style that reflects mid-century American culture; Clarence Mayhew was an important architect and this is a unique and important example of his work; it is important for cities to preserve a diverse array of buildings from their past so that we can preserve the public memory of our history. He went on to say: other cities and property owners have found that preserving mid-century and in particular Googie buildings not only have aesthetic and cultural value but also tangible economic value. They not only benefit the businesses they house but become economic drivers for the neighborhoods in which they are sited. While mid-century architecture is becoming increasingly popular, at the same time it is becoming increasingly rare; those examples that are preserved become a magnet.
It is certainly everyone's right to state opinions, but uninformed opinions are just that.
The Landmarks Preservation Board does not act without thoughtful and careful consideration of the facts and the Ordinance. They volunteer their time to serve the City in order to aid in preserving those pieces of our past that define who we are as a people and a city. The Board would not allow themselves to be bullied into a decision that does not meet the highest standards of the ordinance; if they were so easily influenced, they would have caved in earlier to Karen Gordon's bullying. The Board has the highest integrity in my opinion; it is unfortunate that the professionalism of the Landmark's staff is not up to the Board's same high standards. We owe our thanks to the Board for their commitment and effort.
Posted Wed, May 21, 11:24 a.m. inappropriate
Good Riddance-: The Ballard Mannings/Dennys is an unfortunate reminder of a low point in the art of architecture. While it served its purpose back then, it no longer has any redeeming qualities now. There's many a better use for the land it continues to occupy.
Jerry Gropp Architect AIA PS