City's landmark-preservation process on trial
Preservationists have made a federal case out of the sale of the Federal Reserve Bank's Seattle branch, putting the city's landmark process under scrutiny and raising questions about whether our heritage laws are being followed.
Last week in U.S. District Court in Seattle, chief judge Robert S. Lasnik heard oral arguments in the case of The Committee to Preserve the Federal Reserve Bank v. the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Seattle Branch. The dispute is whether the Fed violated the the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in selling the bank's National Register-eligible downtown branch to an unnamed developer that intends to demolish it. Both NEPA and the NHPA require that federal entities review the impact of major changes such as a sale or the development of federal property. I previewed the case here.
While not exactly on trial, the city of Seattle's landmarks process took up a good part of the hearing. The Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) had submitted a landmark nomination for the low-profile 1951 Moderne-style bank building in 2008. The landmarks board decided it was not a landmark, and that cleared the way for the bank branch's sale. Once a structure has been turned down as a city landmark, it cannot be renominated for five years, during which time the owner can move ahead with demolition or other changes.
The Committee to save the bank argues that the submission of the nomination was part of an effort on the FRB's part to cut off options for saving the building. They want the judge to order the Fed to waive the five-year rule so that a new landmarks submission could be undertaken. They also want the Federal Reserve sale nullified and the NEPA and NHPA processes started from scratch. The bank says there is no need for a do-over and that they've complied with the law, if not before the sale agreement, then after. The sale agreement can be amended if necessary.
Judge Lasnik seemed to question whether a submission to the landmarks board could be a sinister act, and the attorney for the FRB, Melody McCutcheon, pointed out the irony of claiming that the Fed's going before the city landmarks board was an anti-preservation action. It does sound silly, but in fact such nominations are part of usual business at the landmarks board. Anyone experienced with the city landmarks process knows that property owners sometimes nominate their own buildings in the hope that they will be turned down. Landmark status is viewed by some as an encumbrance. Owners sometimes submit nominations to have them rejected, and they hire architectural and historic preservation consultants to help make their case. A recent example was the Ballard Manning's/Denny's diner, where the property owner, a real estate arm of Benaroya, hired a consultant to nominate the building, and when the consultant appeared to lean favorably toward its preservation, fired her and hired another who agreed it was not landmark worthy.
Property owners learn how to work the system. They often have more resources to hire consultants to prepare nominations. They can sometimes slip properties by preservation groups, or can lull people into a false sense of security by appearing to favor designation even while undercutting it. Once the nomination is made, they are in an advantaged position to make their case before the board, especially if there is no opposing argument or organized opposition. The board relies largely on the information provided by the nominators.
In the case of the Federal Reserve Branch, the nomination was prepared by Susan Boyle of BOLA Architecture and Planning, a well-known and respected architect active in landmarks and preservation efforts (she's a key backer of Docomomo-WeWA, a group devoted to preserving mid-20th-century modern architecture). Boyle would certainly be a powerful voice in favor of, or against, a nomination of a building like this one. It is not surprising that she would develop a point of view during her research. She concluded that the bank did not meet any if the city's landmark criteria, and the board unanimously agreed (minutes of the meeting can be found here). Evidence that the Fed was delighted with the result was revealed in court via a so-called "high five" email in which Boyle was congratulated by her client, the Fed, for getting the landmark nomination declined.
The Committee's attorney, Peter Eglick, said it was "ridiculous" to think the bank submitted the nomination in order to preserve the building. It was, he claimed, an attempt to facilitate the sale of the bank while foreclosing other preservation options. If the city had landmarked the building, that would have created tax, zoning and building code advantages that would have made preservation options more viable, if not for the current buyer, then for other potential buyers. Federal law requires that agencies consider things like adaptive re-use, or saving building facades, or, in this case, looking for other federal agencies to take over the site to mitigate any adverse impacts of a sale. The Committee suit claims, in effect, that the Fed used the landmarks process to sabotage the preservation of the building. Nonsense, says the Fed. Karen Gorden of the Landmarks Board adds that the Fed acted responsibly in submitting the nomination and that the board made up its own mind. "There is absolutely nothing in the nomination or even in the discussion at the meeting that would suggest that the Bank or its consultant was trying to convince the Landmarks Board that the building was not eligible for landmark nomination."
A key question in the debate is when a federal agency must conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assessing, in this case, the sale of the building and preservation options, which are supposed to be undertaken in good faith. The Committee argues that the sale of the building is the "final action," meaning that the Fed should have conducted its EIS before any sale agreement, not after. The Fed argues that they could still attach contingencies on a sale, that the sale of the building is, therefore, not final, and they have just finished an EIS that looks at possible preservation options. However, by selling to a particular buyer before fully assessing the impact of the sale, the Committee argues, the Fed precluded the realistic pursuit of other alternatives.
A couple of interesting points. One is that evidence has come up in the Fed's own records indicating that the building's main designer appears to have been Pietro Belluschi, a true 20th century American modern architectural legend. His role needs more research, but his involvement was not known at the time of the landmarks nomination process. Whether his involvement would have changed the board's decision is unknown.
There are architectural historians who believe the building is important. University of Washington professor Jeffrey Karl Ochsner is an authority on Seattle architects and architecture. He has included the building in his course on the subject, (a course with a distinguished pedigree — it was originated by Victor Steinbrueck). He sees the bank as a "significant early milestone" in the development of the local powerhouse architectural firm of NBBJ (prominent firm partner, architect William Bain, Sr., was the project architect on the bank). He also points out that it is a rare survivor of postwar, modern downtown public buildings, the Central Library and City Hall having been replaced and the old Public Safety Building demolished. The bank was one of the first buildings of that era. Judge Lasnik joked at the opening of the hearing that he would not be swayed in his judgment by the fact that he loves the new federal court house, an NBBJ project.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Mar 17, 9:39 a.m. Inappropriate
Skip, what this piece is missing is a claim by anyone that this mediocre 1950s structure is in any way architecturally important or historic. You also make the argument well that the federal government's preemptive-strike landmarks nomination is both legal and an increasingly common practice. Based on this article, I've got to side with the feds on this one.
Posted Wed, Mar 17, 11:29 a.m. Inappropriate
As a person who has looked at the landmarks submissions of many buildings later torn down around the Seattle area, I find it absolutely remarkable that Susan Boyle has any credibility whatsoever in the historic preservation nomination process. She has been hired by many many developers, Vulcan repeatedly, to write a 'landmark nomination' wherein she declares the building not suitable for such a status. What Skip's article suggests, but doesn't go far enough to make completely clear, is that her firm is hired to get the building torn down. Since a 'landmark nomination' submission is required, the developer, who wants the building gone, hires Boyle to make the case that it is not historic enough to warrant preservation. This would be fine, if Boyle were called an authority on removing older buildings, but she passes herself off as an expert on historic preservation. This all seems counterintuitive, but unbelievably the process with her writing the death warrant for many fine buildings in the name of preserving them has gone on for several years.
In many quarters, as soon as her name is seen attached to such a nomination, it is well understood that the building is slated for oblivion. It would seem well past time that such a charade come to an end. Boyle is free to write whatever she wants about whatever building someone chooses to pay her to evaluate- but why is such an opinion given any credence by the landmarks boards?
Posted Wed, Mar 17, 1:53 p.m. Inappropriate
And, although not germain to this issue, firms like Vulcan hire "historic preservation" (read buildings)specialists to handle the EIS sections, or National Register evaluations, and SEPA issues...and then think that they have "met" their compliance requirements. Read Tom King. There is another facet. Archaeology. And it isn't just the sites of Native Americans. This includes consideration of the historical archaeology of the settlement and growth of Seattle. When the Olympic Block in Pioneer Square was redeveloped around 1985, the federal Advisory Council became heavily involved...over the color of concrete. But they forgot the archaeology and a dense mass of 1850s Seattle history left with the subgrade excavations. As the square and other areas redevelop in the future, more will go without some sort of action.
It all depends on who cares about what (there are great differences in perspective even among the architectural historians...which is part of the problem). A number of the laws are in place, but their interpretation, application, and even awareness of their existence and national precedence is seriously flawed.
Posted Wed, Mar 17, 3:29 p.m. Inappropriate
There are many fine historical buildings in Seattle. Perhaps not as many as some would like, but that's why we have the processes described in place. But the Federal Reserve Bank? Come-on. It is one of the ugliest buildings downtown. I'm sure the folks pursuing this are the same ones who wanted to save the Denny's in Ballard.
Posted Wed, Mar 17, 7:58 p.m. Inappropriate
The attack on Susan Boyle is unfair and unwarranted. Art Skolnik, the paid consultant defending the building is the same individual bound and determined to change the Seattle Landmarks process in a way that would allow more property owners to conduct demolitions of historic buildings. Yep. he is being paid...just like Susan Boyle. Its amazing how the system works.
And why anyone would even want to read data free rampages by Tom King is beyond me.
If you want stronger historic preservation laws in place then you need to work to get them put in place. Instead, the majority of people I know just whine that the laws aren't good enough and don't bother to do one thing about trying to get them strengthened. Its always easier to point the finger at someone else. If you want stronger preservation laws then work with your representatives to get them in place. I had a Seattle archaeologist scream about the lack of archaeology being done in Seattle. Like screaming over the phone was going to change a thing. Another perfect example of someone who expects other people to do his work.
Posted Wed, Mar 17, 11:33 p.m. Inappropriate
The problem with the landmark preservation process is that history and aesthetics can work at cross-purposes. A structure can have some level of historical significance and at the same time be totally useless and butt-ugly. Minor historical importance ("a representative example of the classic late 50's drive-in style") should not be sufficient in itself to mandate preservation. Anything that's old enough inevitably will possess at least some trivial claim to a historical role.
Posted Thu, Mar 18, 7:48 a.m. Inappropriate
Leah- the fact that Boyle or Skolnik is being paid is not the issue at all. As consultants of course they should be paid. But that doesn't change the fact that she (and he on plenty of occasions) is paid to subvert the process- which is the real problem. The historic preservation law was not intended, nor in my opinion, should it be used as a means for a developer to have the building torn down. If Ms. Boyle were a true preservationist, she would not get near as much business from the developers. Its not that she is being paid, but by whom, to research the worthiness of a building, that is the telling sign. Doesn't it seem odd to you that an 'historic preservationist' would be consistently employed by people who do not want to see the buildings they own preserved?
Posted Thu, Mar 18, 10:17 a.m. Inappropriate
Portions of an E-mail sent:
From: Erik Reval, Legal Division, Federal Reserve bank of San Francisco (Erik.Reval@sf.frb.org)
To: Susan Boyle (sboyle@bolarch.com)
Date: June 10,2008 12:00 PM
"Hi Susan,
Congratulations on your success at the City's Landmark Board. I heard it went very well."........
.....Thank you for all your work on this project and please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions."
Posted Thu, Mar 18, 4:17 p.m. Inappropriate
@thoughts: The landmarks process allows just this sort of pre-emptive nomination by a property owner seeking to demolish their building. It has for years and these procedures are now very common. So, how is Boyle "subvert(ing) the process?"
Posted Thu, Mar 18, 6:21 p.m. Inappropriate
The fact that something has been going on for years doesn't make it right or good. Once again, its not that property owners shouldn't be trying to stop the landmark process if they want to do a tear down- obviously they have a right to present their building in whatever light they can. The issue is that people like Boyle represent themselves as preservationists, when in fact they are employed to make way for demolition, over and over again.
The wording itself is a key to the inside-outedness, the subversion, of the whole enterprise. As practiced by Boyle and her ilk, the building is 'nominated' not to be nominated.
Its nice to see the email from the Feds congratulating Ms. Boyle for using the 'nomination' to successfully stop the process of nomination......
Posted Fri, Mar 19, 7:34 a.m. Inappropriate
The turn-down by the LPB has no basis in law. No local government has jurisdiction over a higher level of government,in this case, the Feds.
Just like separation of church and state, until the property is owned by a private entity, the LPB has no authority to consider nominating higher governmental properties.
So, the questions are,
Why did the LPB and staff pursue this nomination knowing that any limitations on the property would be invalid?
and, Why did the Federal Reserve Bank nominate the property knowing that this separation of authority is paramount?
Or, why does the LPB and staff believe that the 5 year hold on future nominations (unless authorized by the future private owner)be enforceable as long as the property is owned by a higher government.
Smacks of collusion and hidden agendas by both public and private parties.
Another example of the political pollution of what was supposed to be a responsible and lawful process.
Posted Fri, Mar 19, 8:44 a.m. Inappropriate
Dear Skip,
Although a bit long, the article obviously triggered a lot of pent up hostility. It tells us more about the money in play and the ferocity of the players than about the fairness of the process. Doyle served well as the voodoo doll, but she is hardly alone. Obviously, only volunteers or university professors can be trusted when it comes to making decisions about the value of the country's historic fabric. It may be impossible to balance the heady tension between real estate development and the need to protect the community's historic fabric. Your article did a great service by pointing out how ineffectual our landmark process can be. You didn't suggest it could be reformed, perhaps your next article can do that.
Posted Fri, Mar 19, 4:49 p.m. Inappropriate
Judge Lasnik ruled today (Mar. 19), nullifying the sale of the Federal Reserve Seattle Branch, thus handing a big victory to the plaintiffs, the Committee for Preservation and Art Skolnik. The decision is not about the historic merit of the building, but about the legal process, and the judge found that the Fed violated both NEPA and the NHPA. More on Crosscut soon.
Also to Leah: I'd love to hear why you think Tom King is "data free"? I thought his book critiquing heritage laws (from a preservationist perspective) was quite detailed, data-filed and interesting. He offered detailed case studies and constructive solutions. What did I miss?
Posted Sat, Mar 20, 11:19 p.m. Inappropriate
Analysis of potentially historic properties is largely a matter of opinion, albeit based (one hopes) on solid knowledge of architecture and history. One could have three or five or ten consultants write up an analysis of a property's historic value and come up with three or five or ten different opinions. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards regarding historic properties are full of qualifiers, and not at all concrete - lots of "shoulds" and not very many "musts." This is an interesting case, and I appreciate Knute's reporting (and the various comments submitted).
This reporting and dialogue helps us all learn more, and that's what we all need to do. I know of Susan Boyle's work and she's done some great stuff, particularly with mid-20th century architecture. I have not read her analysis of this building, but suspect she is being someone maligned in some of the readers' comments posted here. I've worked with her firm on historic preservation projects, and found their work to be of very good quality. Not without a sometimes tough give-and-take between architect and client, but that's part of the business.
And yes, Tom King has detractors, but he has also contributed a great deal of informative work to both archaeology and historic preservation. Again, all a matter of opinion, some very informed and some not as much.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.