Seattle's history at risk in plans for Boeing plant demolition
The city of Tukwila, which has no historic preservation ordinance, has a leading position in plans that involve the possible demolition of Boeing's Plant 2, where workers built planes critical to U.S. victory in World War II.
Washington state Department of Ecology
The Seattle area will soon lose an important historic structure if Boeing and the city of Tukwila have their way: a building perhaps second only to the Hanford Reservation for its association with this state's legendary World War II history.
Boeing Plant 2 was where the B-17 — the Flying Fortress — and the B-29 — the Super Fortress — were manufactured during World War II: planes that played a pivotal role in the Allied victory in Europe. Photographs of planes being assembled in the Tukwila plant leave an indelible impression of the sheer scale of production and the enormous human effort involved in manufacturing these planes. Boeing manufactured nearly 7,000 B-17s there during World War II, running three shifts per day, peaking at 16 planes per day in 1944. Today, only 14 B-17s are left in the world — none in Washington — and only ten in flying condition, according to Scott Maher of the Liberty Foundation.
The plant sits within the boundaries of a federal project aimed at restoring the environmentally damaged habitat along the Lower Duwamish Waterway. Last May, a lawsuit was settled between Boeing and the federal government, calling on the company to restore the river bank, which supports salmonids, birds, and other wildlife, and pay $2 million to cover costs to the agencies involved. But the agreement failed to address the fact that the property contained a building of historical importance to this region, Boeing Plant 2, which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
The Duwamish restoration plan calls for removal of a single 53,000-square-foot bay from the enormous 754,000-square-foot structure, listed technically as Buildings 2-41 and 2-42 but known to generations as Plant 2. Boeing, however, would like to demolish the entire plant. The company says it has not actively occupied the site for 40 years.
There has been so much public comment on the restoration plan that the U.S. Department of Justice, which is overseeing the proposed Consent Decree that governs the plan, has extended the comment period until Aug. 9, an additional 60 days due to the complexity of the subject.
Architecturally, the building is considered a landmark design solution for enclosing very large spaces. Built by the Cleveland-based Austin Engineering Co. and constructed in two major stages, in 1936 and 1941, the structure was camouflaged to make it appear from the air as a quiet residential neighborhood, thus hiding the enormous factory from enemy aircraft.
The camouflage was designed by Seattle architects John Detlie, who had a background in set design, and William Bain Sr., who was named "camouflage director" for Washington state during the war. The building is also significant as a place where women and minorities in the Seattle area during World War II had employment opportunities never before afforded them.
In the post-war era, workers continued to design and produce planes in Plant 2 for the Cold War and, as defense contracts waned, for the commercial airline market.
Boeing signed an agreement in 1994 with the Environmental Protection Agency to clean the site of heavy metals and other contaminants in the soil and ground water, and of sediment in the Duwamish Waterway. The company did not, apparently, contemplate demolishing the building at that time, nor did it initiate a “Section 106 Review” for Plant 2 (note that the building was not considered "historic" at that point). Implemented under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, this Section 106 requirement applies if a project receives any federal funding or needs a federal permit of some kind and involves a potential adverse effect to a listed property or a property eligible for listing on the National Register. The federal agency involved must "take into account the effect of that activity" on the proposed historic resource. This generally involves meetings among the affected parties to discuss alternatives and options for minimizing impacts.
The plant, which turned 50 in 1991, is "determined eligible" for listing on National Register of Historic Places, but that eligibility offers little real protection. A National Register property is more effectively protected if a local government has a preservation ordinance and it is listed on a local historic register. Boeing Plant 2 is shared by the cities of Tukwila and Seattle. Tukwila has no preservation ordinance; Seattle has a strong preservation ordinance but has ceded lead-agency status to Tukwila in this case.
Despite the fact that the plan calls for the removal of only one bay, Boeing and Tukwila maintain that the demolition of the entire building is necessary for the site clean-up and waterway restoration. While the company noted in a May press release that it is "developing plans to commemorate the site's historic legacy," no mention was made of the historic status of the buildings.
In the meantime, Tukwila has undertaken environmental review under the auspices of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for demolition of the entire structure, noting in its paperwork that there is "no probable significant adverse environmental impact" anticipated from the demolition. It appears that a Determination of Significance would have been a more appropriate call. The state's Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, however, has apparently elected to not exercise its authority under SEPA to question the city's actions and decisions. And despite the city of Tukwila's position, which would not ordinarily require mitigating for the loss of the historic structure, the city and the Boeing Company have offered a series of mitigation measures, from documenting the structure, to contributing $500,000 to the Museum of History and Industry to prepare an exhibit on the building, to placing a plaque on the property.
Currently, the building is being used to store historic aircraft for the Museum of Industry and to restore a B-17, a B-29, and a Lockheed Constellation. If the building is demolished, volunteers on those projects will have nowhere to go. The group restoring the B-17 wants to see a portion of the building preserved so that they can continue their work and for future educational and interpretive purposes.
The outcome of the environmental process and proposed demolition of Boeing Plant 2 is yet to be seen. Comments have been submitted on the environmental process and the effectiveness of planned mitigation measures. Questions have been asked of the federal agencies involved as to why Section 106 reviews have not been undertaken, answers to which are being pursued by the state and other relevant agencies. The public comment period for the Notice of Decision on the Determination of Non-Significance with the city of Tukwila expired on July 12. In response to questions about appealing the decision, the city has only said that it is appealable to Superior Court. The Department of Justice will take comments on the Consent Decree and accompanying restoration plan until Aug. 9.
Environmental review processes are intended to inform the public as well as decision-makers and bring them into the process. If the lead agency decides that there is a probable adverse impact to the environment as a result of a proposed project, an environmental impact statement can be required, with detailed analyses of the issues and a discussion of the costs and benefits of alternatives. And if an agency decides that the greater public good is served by, in this case, demolition of the structure, then the decision-makers can adopt a statement to that effect and proceed with the action.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Sat, Jul 17, 7:47 a.m. Inappropriate
The B-29 prototypes were built and tested at Plant 2, but production was in Renton, Omaha, and Wichita.
Posted Sat, Jul 17, 12:25 p.m. Inappropriate
Diana: Thanks for taking this story on. It's a big one. I'm a bit baffled by the lack of a Section 106 process since the demolition is, ostensibly, due to an agreement with a federal agency. I know these things get complicated, but it would be good to get clarification on that. The Section 106 process would have required consideration of alternatives to demolition. And it appears total demolition is not necessary to the clean-up process (and clean up is a good thing, no one denies). Also, how could this structure, if eligible for the National Register, be considered "non-significant"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Posted Sat, Jul 17, 1:24 p.m. Inappropriate
Knute, it's a curious thing - the lack of Section 106 and the "non-significance." I don't know how you can propose demolishing a portion of a NR-eligible building, account in the plan for archaeology, and not account for the historic structure, as the MOA with NOAA et al did. At least folks are talking about it now.
Sawman, thanks for the clarification.
Diana
Posted Sat, Jul 17, 2:30 p.m. Inappropriate
Another do-good er out to "help" the landowner with the decision about what to do with prime industrial property.
WWII was then, this is now. You want a museum, or a factory?
We already have the flight museum which is partly devoted to the B-17. That's enough.
My wife's Uncle was killed on his 23rd combat mission in a B-17 on the first Bremen raid. My guess is he would accept your thanks for his giving up his tomorrows for your today's, and would want something built to benefit those alive today.
Posted Sat, Jul 17, 3:20 p.m. Inappropriate
Tear it down. The building is not very attractive to look at. Not everything historical needs to be preserved. The river needs all the help it can get for to restoration.
Posted Sat, Jul 17, 5:47 p.m. Inappropriate
Are preservationists keeping track of the building where Bill Gates, Paul Allen and maybe one or two others cobbled together the infamous "QED" operating system? and then where was Slo-Mo made? I think the distinction should be made between the B-17, an undoubtedly fine work of engineering and manufacturing, and the building where it was produced (or the prototype was produced). The airplane was magnificent but I don't think that fact makes the building historic.
Posted Sun, Jul 18, 7:27 a.m. Inappropriate
As a matter of fact, the Jenson boatyard where the Slo-Mos were built has been preserved, in spite of a vigorous effort by the University to take over the property and 'digest' it into their west campus.
The building is of undoubted historical significance. The B-17, the B-29, the B-57 and the B-52, with their civilian follow-ons, were the leaders in aviation. The pressurized cabin, the swept wing, the nacelle mounting of the engines- all emerged from Plant Two and changed aviation from a dangerous toy of the rich into a dependable means of transportation. The modern forward-looking workforce quite arguably made Seattle different from Tacoma, with the results we see today.
It would, in fact, trivialize the building to keep it as a white elephant, visited by a few dozen (if that) tourists a day.
Give it to the University School of Architecture, with the charge of building a new south campus for the University in the unchanged outer shell. It's the right thing to do.
Posted Sun, Jul 18, 12:24 p.m. Inappropriate
Diana (Dr. Painter) has done a great service to all by investing her time and expertise in bringing this matter to the attention of Washington residents and to professional historians and historic preservationists around the country. Not every historic property has a pretty face or pleasant story. The Boeing plant represents an important chapter in American history. Unfortunately, the Section 106 tale Diana recounts underscores the need for serious reform in the cultural resource management industry. Just because someone can check off the "archaeology" box in a standard form does not mean that an agency (or its licensee or grantee) has done its due diligence with regard to compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. The way things work now (and how they have worked in the compliance world for the past 45 years) is great for archaeologists who get paid for their services but lousy for the communities with significant resources that are overlooked and the stakeholders attached to the properties.
Posted Sun, Jul 18, 12:33 p.m. Inappropriate
Tear it down, but don't put up new industry there!
I worked there 1951-52, and also in what was called the DPC (Defense Plant Corporation) box office building across the street, between Marginal Way and Boeing Field. Where we saw the XB-52 take off, with the road atop the hill still further east (there was no I-5 then) totally lined with cars, hot dogs sold,etc. for what was supposed to be a secret appointed time for the take-off, the behemoth aircraft guided aloft by Legendary Test Pilot Tex Johnson.
Let's hear more about just what would be accomplished by way of Duwamish clean-up if Plant 2 were demolished. Assuming no new source of pollution was put on the site, of course...
Charlton Price
Posted Sun, Jul 18, 12:56 p.m. Inappropriate
Just because a site is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places doesn't mean it should be included on the register, nor does it mean that the site's existence can't be commemorated in ways other than physical preservation. As mentioned in this article, options include signage, a display featuring the history of this building in the Museum of Flight, photos and narrative text on a website documenting the rich history of this part of the Duwamish corridor, etc.
It sounds like DHAP and the Muckleshoot tribe already have been consulted in the context of the Section 106 process and are supportive of the cleanup process. Just because a site is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places doesn't mean it should be included on the register, nor does it mean that the site's existence can't be commemorated in ways other than physical preservation. Options include signage, a display featuring the history of this building in the Museum of Flight, photos and narrative text on a website documenting the rich history of this part of the Duwamish corridor, etc.
Anyone who advocates the preservation of all or part of Plant 2 should propose viable sources of revenue to enable cleanup of the contamination and ensure that it is kept in a safe and serviceable condition in perpetuity. To insist that Tukwila undertake this, or even waste precious funds doing an EIS at a time when the city is flat out broke and is laying off staff is to clamor that money be wasted on process rather than the constructive outcome of cleanup and environmental restoration of the site.
Posted Mon, Jul 19, 2:27 p.m. Inappropriate
Wow, thank God Tacoma dodged that bullet!
Posted Mon, Jul 19, 5:29 p.m. Inappropriate
In, I believe, 1968 thousands of UW students and like minded people surged on to Intersate 5 (Northbound only, I think) and stopped traffic for several hours. It was a major event and could be reasonably regarded as historic; it likely changed Washington politics for at least a generation and maybe to this day. Does that mean the Interstate 5 between 45th St. and Roanoke should be have some sort of historic designation? it would probably not be unprecedented to do so; several Revolutionary War battles were fought on or near roads and some of those locations have historic designation. But I would argue that, like Plant Two, the physical place where some significant events occur are neutral with regard to the event or accomplishment itself. Thus Madame Curie's laboratory would have a lot more significance to Curie's accomplishments than the office building where some ground-breaking software was devised. I admit this is a shaky distinction but applying the historic straitjacket to buildings and places with little or no
significance to our history risks damaging the social utility of the marketplace.
Posted Tue, Jul 20, 9:11 a.m. Inappropriate
Robert Burwell says:
July 16, 2010 at 4:53 pm
I worked at plant 2 from 1987 to 1990. Manufacturing still existed there well into the 90?s, however assembly of aircraft ceased at plant 2 after the first few 737s. That building has a lot of history. Its a shame to see it torn down. Three generations of my family worked in that building. I still work for Boeing in Auburn Washington, and all of us here hate to see it go. Of special note, After commercial operations ended at plant 2, defense and space took over and many projects vital to our freedoms were carried out in this historic landmark. This nation owes a debt of gratitude to the people who worked in this place and built the products that kept this country free for over half a century.
Re-post from http://thereifixedit.com/2010/07/15/white-trash-repairs-historical-thursday-kludge-city/#comments
Posted Tue, Jul 20, 2:37 p.m. Inappropriate
Plant 2 has certainly been used in the last 40 years! I worked in that building many years and did not start at Boeing until 1980. It had an overhead catwalk that went to a computer complex and the remainder of the second floor from the headquarters building. Surely, there must be some executive still in Seattle that worked there.
Are they planning to demolish the old headquarters, also? While it is historic, it is just plain gorgeous piece of history. Maybe someone more familiar with the architecture can do a little reseach and come up with additional reasons to save that too.
lynnperkins
Posted Tue, Sep 21, 10:37 p.m. Inappropriate
New airlines are taking a hit while no longer expanding fleets. This is because one of the greatest things hit economically during the worldwide economic downturn was airline travel. Most subsidies are made by the government to producers or distributors in an industry to prevent the decline of that industry or an increase in the prices of its products or simply to encourage it to hire more labor.
Large government subsidies have been accepted by aircraft producers that try to boost the bottom line in any way possible. According to Reuters, the storied American airline producer, Boeing, is in trouble with the World Trade Organization (WTO) for getting government subsidies to take advantage of the situation and compete with Airbus, the European competitor. The $20 billion in subsidies is being challenged by the European Union, according to sources.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.