Pike Place 'Shopping Center'
Critics of Seattle's Pike Place Market ballot measure think the Market should be ruled by the market.
When I saw the "above the fold" story on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer Web site, "Market levy raises managerial questions," I braced for new revelations about mismanagement or incompetence in running the Pike Place Market. Instead, the piece focused on criticism of the ballot measure seeking $73 million to fund infrastructure improvements at the Market. The complaints were from commercial real-estate brokers who said the Pike Place Market ought to be able to raise the funds from its own operating budget.
It's certainly a fair point. We ought to demand accountability from any public agency that wants to spend our money, and the Market's long history, even since being "saved," has demonstrated a track record of mismanagement, in-fighting, and feuds, as well as the best of intentions. That goes back far enough to be part of the place's "colorful" history. But critics, which included Geri Kraft, who wrote the Voter's Pamphlet opposition statement to Seattle Proposition 1, also seem to be holding the Market to commercial standards, a move that oversimplifies the nature of our beloved beast. According to the P-I story:
Commercial real estate experts in Seattle say it's stunning that Pike Place Market, with nearly full occupancy, a prime location and 10 million visitors a year, has fallen into such disrepair that it needs a $73 million infusion from taxpayers for seismic upgrades and to replace things such as basic plumbing, wiring and ventilation systems.
'I am raising the question because I wonder what is going on here,' said Geri Kraft, who has been a commercial real estate broker in Seattle for 30 years. 'This isn't a city park, it is a vital, busy shopping center.'
The characterization of the Pike Place Market as a "shopping center" is patently absurd. The Market is a market, but it is also an official city historic district, one of our major tourist attractions, a retail space, crafts market, arts venue, key link in the local food chain, a hub for low-income housing and social services, and yes, a park, among other things. It is hard to think of another public entity (the Port? Seattle Center?) that serves such a complex mission.
The Market was rescued (and re-rescued from New York investors) not to serve as a Pacific Place-style mall, but because it represented something more about the city itself — and public management has enriched its overall role and value. It has been a bulwark against downtown development that has threatened the character of the city by pushing for the maximum financial gain of every property.
The Market has waited patiently while other funding measures, with mayoral sanction, have gone on the ballot ahead of it — parks, community centers, libraries, the opera house, streets, and bridges. The politicos have asked the Market to be patient, to wait its turn while other measures enjoyed being considered in boom times. It is the Market's good sportsmanship and bad luck that have put this measure on the ballot now.
The Market needs some fundamental upgrading, and Seattle Prop. 1 is not about fancy dubs, but about doing basic seismic, electrical, and plumbing work that will make it safer, greener, and help it last for another 100 years. This is the kind of work any property owner knows it is easy to let slide: unglamorous, expensive, little will shown outwardly for the effort. But it is part of stewardship. We worry about seismic catastrophe with the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Where would we be if a quake caused the Market to collapse or slide into Elliott Bay? A lot more than a shopping center would be lost.
Remember that if downtown commercial real estate experts had their way, the Market would not exist, but would have been torn down as part of urban renewal to make room for parking garages and other commercial development. Unthinkable in retrospect, but it's important to remember that nothing in this changing world is ever "saved;" the task of preservation is ongoing. The public commitment continues from generation to generation. And yes, occasionally, the need for more investment, even a bailout. Commitment to the Market hinges on understanding its unique historic, cultural, social, and economic role in Seattle life. The fact that some still see it as just another "shopping center" should raise alarm bells. It's anything but.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Wed, Oct 22, 1:08 a.m. inappropriate
unique cultural and social role in Seattle ?
perhaps you can ( in detail and to the points ) provide proof of such ?
are you 'proud' of Seattle's drug culture ?
Posted Wed, Oct 22, 9:14 a.m. inappropriate
Come on, Knute, let's keep it honest. You know very well that no one is claiming the market to be "just another shopping center". That's a straw man you made up to sidestep the fair question that Geri is asking - why can't the market pay for itself?
The market's business model is identical to that of any shopping center in that it leases space to retailers, and most shopping centers that get that kind of foot traffic raise more than enough revenue to cover infrastructure expenses. So what's different about the market?
There is likely a good answer to this question. Perhaps the quirky type of shops in the market can't afford the expensive leases that Pottery Barn or Abercrombie and Fitch would pay. Or perhaps visitors to the market tend to spend less money than do Northgate shoppers.
I'm glad to see that your defending the market, but I think you could strengthen your case by doing a little digging and making a few calls.
Posted Wed, Oct 22, 12:34 p.m. inappropriate
It was annoying to me that the newspaper articles describing the scope of the work showed pictures of obviously neglected pipes and ducts. Things that should be part of responsible maintenance and paid out of yearly income. I think the same article identified the Hillclimb as the big expense with very little description or explanation.
I assume the Market pays no property taxes and the capital investment is on us, the taxpayers, so the enterprise should be at least self sustaining. An obvious comparison is the sports stadiums; who pays the upkeep on those?
Posted Wed, Oct 22, 12:35 p.m. inappropriate
All of Seattle benefits from Pikes Place Market. The economic benefits of Pikes Place as an "authentic experience destination" are reaped both on and off-site. Authentic experience destinations rightly rely on reaping some of these off-site returns via public subsidy.
Posted Wed, Oct 22, 3:05 p.m. inappropriate
Amazing.
Yes the market is chock full, but for the most part rents are low, which is why artists, farmers and immigrants can try their hand at capitalism. To those who claim the rents should be higher, do you honestly think you would get the mix of vendors with higher rents? The flower vendor still recovering from last years floods of their fields? The various small enterprizes of home made cooking oils or beeswax candles. Give it a rest. Not good enough for you that the Market has brought the neighborhood value up to among the highest levels in the city? Did anyone notice the record setting condo sold for 8.7 million atop the NEW Four Seasons Hotel being built? Did anyone notice the 900,000 guests traveling through Seattle enroute to and from cruises this summer?
They did not come to the market to see Starbucks or strip malls... they came to see goods mostly grown, harvested, or made in the region.
By ratio, the subsidy is FAR less then our Port for the numbers attracted. It is a quality of life question. Yes, perhap it could have been mannaged better to set aside funds, but considering the last market upgrade was more than two decades ago, and we have since discovered more work that needs to be done, it is a very small investment that pays off rather well, even if NOT at current commecial property standards... but would the Seattle Center, the Port, our parks, and are stadiums measure up by that same "commercial standard"?
There is plenty to improve upon... but for a little more than we just paid for a streetcar to "serve" the south Lake Union area, I think we get a lot more back from our investment in the Pike Place Market. I, too, am overwhelmed by the current economy, but will vote yes for the market repair.
As soon as I see the P & L statement the market critics can give me for the Kingdome... Blown up with 25 years still to pay on the morgage so the Seahawks can make more money, I will be happy to review my vote.
Posted Wed, Oct 22, 3:40 p.m. inappropriate
hackenflack:
Your argument is that the vitality of the Market is driving condo prices? that's a stretch.
Rent on other commercial competing retail space is commonly based on a percentage of gross sales (often with a tax and insurance escalator). If that rent structure is used at the Market some low-grossing businesses would be given some shelter.
The social utility of maintaining money-losing ventures at the Market, businesses that can't pay rent (even rent that is subsidized by what I assume is tax-free land), is something that needs more illumination. Tour boat statistics and the (recently) hot real estate market are not very convincing.
Posted Wed, Oct 22, 6:10 p.m. inappropriate
another neglected city want that not funded at the level of need by the city or the consumers.
Maybe they should ask for a trolley, or claim it as art and swipe the 4culture money.
Posted Wed, Oct 22, 6:35 p.m. inappropriate
The economic benefits of the Pike Place market in the eyes of the nation and world cannot be denied, as 'citymaking' ably points out. This probably exceeds any sports stadium as far as reputation goes, and, FWIW, a much more 'stable' plus than sports, especially at the moment.
There is another crucial difference between the Market as tourist destination and pro sports - the 'players' aren't pulling down million dollar salaries, they are, to use the term du jour - just a bunch of 'joes'.
Business goverment models can work anyway we want them to - there is no reason why anyone needs to guarantee a commercial real estate investor a 500,000 dollar a year salary - all the more so given the unraveling of that business model in the Bush streets of NYC and WA DC.
That isn't to say that there isn't anything to be concerned about in this levy, there probably is. But it would be best to concentrate on those specific problems rather than painting the iconic market as a 'welfare' project - including 'Joe' Martin's Pike Place Senior Center.
It a weighty symbol in Seattle, one that could even end up expanding. If it does it would be best to focus on its health, not discredit yourself with pretty absurd allegations, given how much the real estate has fraudulently taken from the US system.
Posted Thu, Oct 23, 9:31 a.m. inappropriate
The question of funding this improvement is quite logical in that it reflects a lack of public understanding of the business of the Market. How are rents established? Are they fare? Are they essentially established by the tenants? If so, I doubt that they are "fair and balanced."
The last capital improvement was done with donations (and I happily participated!). Why not this time too?
I thought the Sonics were tossed out of town in part because we wanted to save the tourist taxes for things like this. Why didn't we extend those taxes and issue bonds? That way, the beneficiaries (tourism businesses) essentially pay the tax.
Or how about a reasonable combination of the above?
I love the Market and will vote for this measure, in part by plugging my nose. But this is reflective of poor government management, which, in this case, may be only poor communications. Trust does not exist in this world anymore. The way you build it is openness and being a good fiduciary.
Posted Thu, Oct 23, 12:20 p.m. inappropriate
What [hacknflack] said. Market rate, at a waterfront high-traffic retail area, would turn into any other boring mall. Pike's Market is for the unique, even odd, small businesses that attract tourists to our area. I'll subsidize that.
Posted Fri, Oct 24, 8:10 a.m. inappropriate
Hey Keith,
It is more than tour boat stats, and not just recent condo sale prices. As a fourth generation local, I can recall when property around the market sold or rented for a song and NO one but bohemians, artists and down and outers lived near the market. I recall the old men in cheap apartments would sit in the windows on rainy saturdays above the Virgina Inn as the only option of affordable housing.
Thanks to the refurbishment in the late 70's and mid 80's, we saw developers using proximity to the market as a key selling point, and records for downtown condos started to be set.
They set records right while the market was still in redevelopment.. This was back when no one paid a Miilion dollars for condos anywhere in this town, and you could still buy a houseboat for under $100,000.
The complex just north of the market was among the first. Then came the condos above Ettas, and again when Vysis (sp?) sold a two bedroom for 3.5 million a decade ago just north of the Terminal Sales Building.
My dad had an office in the TSB for 25 years... mid 60's on, and I spent many weekends catching a ride downtown with dad to 1st and Lenora. Back then you could find parking on the street easy... and under the viaduct for free as long as you did not mind all the panhandling and poverty, and drunks you encountered walking up the hill.
There was a strip club in the Moore (I think it was the Starlight?) and dad cautioned us to stay away from the Gibson Girls. Bars like the Oxford and Virginia Inn back then catered to a very different mix of clients than they do today. The upper crust of Seattle avoided shopping at the market preferning to stay up on 4th and 5th Avenues near F & N.
The market revitalization can fairly take a good chunk of credit for bringing the First Avenue core back to life, and upscaling it.
As the region grew wealthier, developers could have invested in inexpensive Seattle core properties in Bell Town, Pioneer Square, the Cascade neighborhood and up on Pine... but the most expensive condos came first to within walking distance of the Market.
In short, the mix the market offers by cheaper rents continues to make it one of the most successful draws in Seattle, for both locals and tourists. It was classic good Seattle policy that set aside housing in and around the market for subsidized low income housing, daycare and senior services despite the obvious new values on the land. Prices near the market for the last decade would have made subsidized Senior housing impossible.
The ultimate compliment to current market management is watching the Crossroads Mall get written up as a genius bit of marketing for attempting to create a simmilar feel and merchant mix. Suburban Malls and Suppermarkets spend big bucks to attempt to replicate a place like Pike Place.
Thats why keeping the original market healthy is worth the investment. If we can find fiscal rational for our "investment" in our stadiums, light rail and third runway, this should be a no brainer.
Let me know which condos within 10 blocks of the market don't sell the market in their sales brochures... I would be happy to sell my services to that developer.
Posted Sun, Oct 26, 4:18 p.m. inappropriate
For the record: The SLUT was an L.I.D.