Newcomers, money shadow Pike Place Market's future
In the next few years, federal guidelines for urban renewal will no longer protect Pike Place Market. There are looming mandates to be financially sustainable. And newcomers' lack of market memories could be the biggest threat of all to preserving the market.
In just two years, Pike Place Market will transfer from the strict guidelines of a 40-year federal urban renewal plan to the control of the city of Seattle. Seattle City Council and the mayor will be obligated to confirm a transfer agreement another two years later, in 2014.
When the transfer from the federal HUD urban renewal plan is complete, the market and its control will become the council and the mayor’s responsibility. Their control will extend over market property far larger than just the sales area we and thousands of tourists know so well. The entire site occupies 22 acres, divided up for many uses under a public development authority charter agreement with the city.
Will this historic site and its uses as a public market continue to be one of Seattle’s cherished landmarks? What powers, if any, might influence elected officials to make changes? Is any of this prime real-estate vulnerable to denser commercial development?
Concern for the market was recently raised by Joan Paulson, a longtime market supporter and a former employee of both the city and the Pike Place Market Preservation & Public Development Authority, the landmark’s management organization. She says she wants to know if the market’s character is secure. She’s not citing any conspiracy, but with her extensive knowledge of market history, she believes revisiting the market’s operational structure can be important to the future of the area, which has become almost sacred ground to preservationists.
First, there’s an opportunity to assure that the transition doesn’t lead to a takeover by some unknown development or investment group, something that almost occurred once before. She noted that the existing charter agreement requires the market be financially sustainable. Could the need for operational funds generate sufficient temptation to seek development that would provide income? The city has made clear its general support higher densities in Seattle. Might that preference threaten the market’s ambience or character?
Whether there is any real concern over the market’s future depends on whom you talk to. While the market was originally created to provide a place for farmers to sell their products at no or low cost, there is concern that the income from modest rents will not be sufficient. And the market isn’t exactly an island. The character of surrounding neighborhoods, access, parking, the design for access to the Battery Street tunnel, and the somewhat fickle nature of tourism will all play a role in the market’s future.
Intelligent discussion of the Pike Place Market is complicated by the very diversity of interests it embodies. Economics, legal issues, varied uses, and a half-dozen competing user groups, all add up to a complicated history (a good short version is available on Wikipedia).
There are differing opinions on what changes are possible under the existing PDA charter agreement with the city. PDA director John Turnbull and Carol Binder, executive director, believe little or no change is possible, since much of the existing market lies within a historic preservation district. They say the terms of their charter are clear and unbreakable.
Martha Lester of the city council central staff commented at a recent meeting that she is not aware of any movement within the council to change the status quo in the charter or any basic market policies. The possibility of zoning or code changes mostly applies to other market properties just outside the historic district.
Much of the market’s future is wrapped up in the complex legal language within the charter agreement and the complexity of the site itself. The 22 acres are divided among a number of uses, each with defined use agreements that range from public housing to retail sales, parking, food services and crafts.
Oversight of the market rests with the Pike Place Market Preservation & Development Authority (PDA), a form of government corporation established under state law. The PDA itself is overseen by a 12-member volunteer council.
Established in 1973, the PDA manages 80 percent of the properties in the city-recognized Market Historical District. Its charter requires it to preserve, rehabilitate, and protect the market's buildings; increase opportunities for farm and food retailing; incubate and support small and marginal businesses; and provide services for low-income people. PDA revenues derive from the market's tenants through rent, utilities, and other property management activities.
Operating independently of the PDA, the Market Historical Commission has the mandate to preserve the market's physical and social character as "the soul of Seattle." The commission must approve any substantive change in the use or design of buildings and signage in the Historical District, even when these actions are taken by the PDA.
Besides those various organizations, there are also such groups at The Market Foundation, three individual merchants associations, and The Buskers Guild. Then there are such services as the Pike Place Senior Center, The Food Bank and The Pike Market Clinic.
Managing the market, its property, and its maintenance and operation is not unlike imagining a presidential state dinner where, instead of having one chef, you mistakenly hired a dozen world-class chefs, with egos to match. Former city council member Charlie Chong once described the market as a “can of worms.” There are, and have been, continuing disputes between management and those who rent day stalls, food sellers, crafts people, restaurants etc. At times the conflicts have required City council intervention.
While the PDA's current managers adamantly believe that the charter is too solid to be dismissed, the terms of that charter are a creation of government. The question is, could the city modify or dissolve the charter agreement? Jorgen Bader, a retired attorney for the city who was involved in drafting the charter, recalls there were differences of opinion on whether the charter agreement could, or should, be modified to increase or decrease the ability to be dissolve it.
The City Clerk’s office files contain a discussion between an attorney for the city, Donald Stout, and Gerry Johnson, a private attorney now associated with the market. They mention the potential provision for city intervention with the establishment of a trusteeship and termination of agreement.
The PDA is firm in believing that the Historic Preservation District protects most of the market. Yet not one of the district’s buildings has been given individual historic status. The assumption is that the overlay district protects all buildings within its boundaries. There are skeptics who believe that when the development potential of real-estate becomes valuable enough, there might be sufficient financial interest to legally test the preservation designation.
If there is any real threat to the market and the values it represents, it may be rooted in the fact that preservation of anything requires institutional memory. As Seattle grows with new people from distant places, they can’t know what energy and inspiration created the public market.
There are those who cherish the uneven floors, mysterious passageways and the smell of fish mixed with the aroma of food of all ethnic origins. The market has a sound and smell of its own.
The market was once almost lost to an East Coast investment group through some bad legal and financial advice. What we have learned from experience is that with the best intentions, a management group like the PDA can make poor choices. The lesson, if any, is to be vigilant and continue talking about the market and its value. Interested citizens like Joan Paulson only ask that we pay attention.
Since 40 percent of Seattle residents are new to the city, is there is any possibility that future Seattleites might like the market to be different? Attitudes change. Will future city politicians see old construction methods and policies in need of high-density, green development?
If humor is your thing, consider: New Mayor Mike McGinn’s supporters talk of legalizing pot. Where better to explore this pursuit than the Market’s Victor Steinbrueck Park, where tensions and controversy often surface? It could become the most mellow park in the city with the passing of bongs and park visitors leaning on the fence overlooking the waterfront where, without the viaduct, 100,000 vehicles will create the most massive traffic jam in America. And somewhere in the bowels of the city there might be a massive tunnel boring machine stuck for lack of funds to keep it moving.
Aside from people without historic perspective, the danger to the market may come from the need for financially sustainability. If rental income from those who toss fish or sell delightfully fragrant candles can’t support the PDA staff and operations, will the PDA look to development to bring in higher rents and more income? Then, would Walmart, McDonald’s and Walgreens want a market outlet?
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Jan 13, 9:19 a.m. Inappropriate
The Market should have more takeout places and perhaps a few grocery stalls open during the evening, at least until 8:00. If a few sellers banded together, maybe get a few newspaper articles... Personally I walk past the market every night. If it's after banking hours or if I've gone to the gym (at the Market) it's too late to buy dinner.
The article mentions 99. The plan is for a new surface arterial where the viaduct is currently, tying into Western and Elliott north of the Market. The current tunnel, which is seriously below code btw, won't be needed, so there won't be any entrance/exit traffic near the Market. This should clean up the overpass area in particular. It'll be good to have a new sidewalk along the old 99 route to the waterfront.
Posted Wed, Jan 13, 1:08 p.m. Inappropriate
Just a few weeks ago, Seattle voters approved a tax levy to refurbish (again) the buildings that comprise the Pike Place Market. The campaign focused on the cherished historical nature of the market and why we can't let it continue to deteriorate. Not a murmur about any change of use or non-compliant redevelopment of the type that Kent speculates about.
It's incomprehensible that City government or the governing authorities at the market would thumb their noses at Seattle voters and allow changes beyond the scope of what's there now.
Posted Wed, Jan 13, 3:27 p.m. Inappropriate
Thanks Kent, regarding the recently arrived (less than 20 year) Seattle citizens. They are more vocal than the 2, 3, 4 or more generations of residents. I know the feeling. Seattle being my home town since 1949, the sense of quiet appreciation pervades my thoughts. Consequently, it is understandable that citizens from afar would vocalize their adamant desires, having expectations of "change" and seeing aspects they miss from whence they came. We (the local descendents of the original Euro-invaders) don't even have predominant representation in city government.
I was here and helped fight THUG in the 70s from acquiring the Market. I live in Port Townsend these days and see exactly the same issues here.
Change is the constant. Incompetence is inevitable.
Artis
Iconoclast
Non-conformist
Realist
Activist
Posted Wed, Jan 13, 3:27 p.m. Inappropriate
To clarify, the levy fixes stuff that has gotten only bandaids in the past 100 years -- seismic, HVAC, ADA, etc. It'll include some renovation type work but that's not the main part.
I too hope the character is preserved in the process.
Posted Thu, Jan 14, 1:57 p.m. Inappropriate
I doubt Pike Place Market will ever be demolished. The argument that newcomers won't support its preservation because they have no 'old time' memories is silly. The market will always be memorable.
There is one area that could be ruined by development and should be a part of this discussion: the lower level parking lot just south of Steinbrueck Park. Developers have had their eyes on that lot a long time. If it were developed with view condos, the view from the market would be lost.
Even though Steinbrueck Park is Seattle's finest view downtown, it is a lousy design. Much of the raised lawn should be removed and more space dedicated to plaza. The picnic bench should go. The fence overlooking the freeway should have a landscape border to keep people at least 3' away from the edge and view of traffic below. It's important that the lot just south be built up and dedicated to park space. It could be sold and the view made a private pleasure, but Steinbrueck Park is essentially too small to safely and ably accommodate public purposes.
Posted Thu, Jan 14, 5:41 p.m. Inappropriate
The railing at Steinbrueck is a prime spot, and should be kept! The lawns are pretty popular in warm weather as well. Overall, for all the complaints about the park, it's used EXTREMELY heavily.
Downtown Seattle parks tend to have too many bums, but that's because our lack of park space causes the bums to concentrate in a small area. Add parks and the bums/acre and bums/park ratios fall.
Here's an idea for the vacant lot south of VSP. Build a rooftop plaza and park at the same level as the Main Arcade's main walkway. Use the south part of this plaza as an expanded area for day stalls, and let the north part be an extension of the park. Below the plaza, build something useful like more senior housing, similar to the PDA property just south. Feature a nice hillclimb to the new surface road in the 99 ROW.
Posted Sat, Jan 16, 11:41 a.m. Inappropriate
I believe 'everyone' has the right to enjoy Steinbrueck Park, mhays. More people could use it with a remodel.
When crossing Western toward the park, pedestrians can be intimidated by seated carrousers. It would be better if the crosswalk led directly into a wide open plaza with scattered and portable seating and tables. Smaller raised lawns with the concrete edge seating could remain on either side of this wide plaza.
As for the west side railing, peering over the edge, the traffic creeps me out, and detracts from the scenic view. A 'low' landscape border 3' wide would enhance the view and dogs do their business there instead of on the lawn.
Steinbrueck Park is basicly too small and should have a level extension some distance into the south lot, probably all the way to the elevator. Not much new housing view is gained due to the condos on the waterfront. I still believe a monorail line could run along SR99 with a pedestrian bridge over to a station near Pine Street on the Waterfront.
Posted Sat, Jan 16, 4:52 p.m. Inappropriate
Of course everyone has that right (aside from conduct issues). You and I are speaking in a similar way about mitigating the effects of the bums.
As for the railing, people want to stand there, and will do so even if it means standing on the low planter you describe. People like seeing the whole view. If it's 99 you don't like, that's going away. If it's heights, solvable by standing a few feet back.
Posted Sun, Jan 17, 6:28 a.m. Inappropriate
It is a supreme irony that most pristine example of theoretical capitalism is the socialist **owned** Pike Place public market, and at considerably less public cost than either the downtown or port business districts.
If anything should be talked about it is the expansion of the market area. The Choppaduct might not be viable across the entire waterfront, but it very likely is in the Market area. Alternatively, preserving the Viaduct structure in the Market area as the foundation for an expansion of Steinbrueck park would be fantastic.
Personally, I have no objection to McDonalds joining the market, so long as it is a consistent expansion AND they pay the full price for value to the PUBLIC.
Posted Mon, Jan 18, 8:30 a.m. Inappropriate
The viaduct structure would need massive work to make it stable, provide stairs and elevators for emergency egress and general access, provide fencing so people don't fall off, etc.
Further, where would 99 traffic go, since it's currently planned to be in that corridor? Third, since it's probably 20' lower than Steinbrueck, the view wouldn't be very good. Fourth, unless it's extremely well connected and part of a hillclimb, it's easy to imagine it being one of our more underused parks, because it would be out of the way. Fifth, Steinbrueck is the roof of an open-sided parking garage, which would make the Viaduct space unpleasant.
Posted Mon, Jan 18, 10:50 a.m. Inappropriate
That's another thing about SR99 west of Steinbrueck. It's coming down, no doubt about it. he overhead in Lower Belltown and the on/off ramps are coming down and will be replaced with a 'lower' version of the same road.
WSDOT renderings show a sidewalk on both sides of the new road. That's just plain stupid. A sidewalk on the eastside should rise up to the level of Steinbrueck Park with a formal, landscaped border separating it from the traffic lanes. A westside sidewalk along the new road is unecessary. A separated basic bike lane maybe for that side might be a fun downhill ride.
Posted Mon, Jan 18, 11:39 a.m. Inappropriate
The sidewalk should give people a good low-slope route up the hill. That means a sidewalk on both sides at street level. There should definitely be a direct stair to VSP of course. (I'm trying to imagine the justification for cutting pedestrians off on this road...why?)
A bike lane should be included on the uphill side especially. A downhill lane would be nice, but standard bike route design prioritizes uphill lanes...because bikes are slow and wobbly going uphill.
Posted Mon, Jan 18, 3:55 p.m. Inappropriate
mhays. Walking south from Elliott at Blanchard, both sidewalks will be 'boxed-in' with the backside of the waterfront condos and the parking garage below Steinbrueck Park, and there'll be a lot of traffic. An east-side sidewalk should go to Steinbrueck Park. You think people would rather walk alongside lower levels of the parking structure? From Steinbrueck Park to the waterfront, the slope of a sidewalk from Stewart Street would not be too steep. Geez.
Posted Mon, Jan 18, 5:14 p.m. Inappropriate
We need sidewalks for basic access, not just casual strolling.
While a direct route to VSP is important, you'd need a VERY good reason to skip a sidewalk on either side of the new avenue. Thankfully it would be considered heresy among planners and politicians almost as much as it would among pedestrian advocates. Also, it's a given that people will walk on both sides even if a sidewalk is missing, as they (we) often do in similar cases. So it should be moot.
Count me among those who will often walk up a gradual route in lieu of a steep one. I bet a poll of ferry riders headed for Belltown would find a lot of similar opinions.
Posted Tue, Jan 19, 10:56 a.m. Inappropriate
The new road, with heavy traffic, will be boxed-in between stark condo backsides and a parking garage. Sidewalks could run between the Lenora elevator and Elliott. That elevator may need to be raised another level or two for a pedestrian bridge over the roadway. South of Lenora, sidewalks at road level will be dismal. What is it with Seattler's love affair with traffic?
Posted Wed, Jan 20, 11:38 a.m. Inappropriate
Correction: WSDOT Scenarios for a surface boulevard have a stoplight intersection at Lenora. Sorry. I still believe Scenario 'G' 4-lane cut/cover tunnel is possible and the better tunnel option. It would be lower in elevation with no stoplights. Thus, a pedestrian bridge over it leading to the Lenora elevator (raised) is probably a good idea. And in the 4-lane cut/cover tunnel scenario, only an eastside sidewalk level with this pedestrian bridge makes sense. I hate the Deep-bore tunnel with a passion.
Posted Wed, Jan 20, 3:35 p.m. Inappropriate
To preserve the Market as a venue for the purchase of fresh food, the Market needs customers. Building 30-story towers over it would make it indispensable to a lot of people.
That's probably not going to pass muster with the historical preservation people, but a streetcar on First would help a lot. If it ran a mile in each direction from Pike, it would gather in huge numbers of people.
The Market managers should also be reviewing to make sure they have good suppliers for the range of foods a shopper expects to find in one place- and maybe a few more, like bulk grains and organics from PCC.
As a tourist attraction, it will eventually be duplicated and lose its appeal.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.