Brooks wrote Clark that "we are concerned about the affect of significantly increased height limits on Pioneer Square's historic character and the long-term viability of the neighborhood as a National Register District."

Ouch. Did she really say "affect"?

So change the "rules". Many of them have been snuck into place by extremists.

One way the City Council might be able to skate around the SEPA rules is to claim that the Council had made the "policy decision" but had also delegated responsibility to SDOT for SEPA compliance.

The only problem with that approach is that the Mayor's appointee (Peter Hahn) would be the responsible SEPA official and would have to pass on the adequacy of the EIS and its impacts. That's probably not an argument the Council would want to make.

It will be interesting to see how Mr. Holmes gets out of this one.

Oh, yeah! Mr. Holmes! The perfect person for changing - or finding ways around - rules and laws. If he can tweak standard sentencing guidelines to help convicted illegal immigrants avoid the attention of immigration officials, he - surely - can help Party-blessed projects avoid SEPA, et al.

I write to speak to suppporting increased height in Pioneer Square - I live and work in the district - and chose to do so because I am passionate about historic character. I respect Dr. Brooks and the WA Trust for Historic Preservation that having incentives for historic preservation is critical-and the proposed DPD plan has that.

I arrives at a different conclusion than either Dr. Brooks or the WA Trust - and as someone who as honored to serve on the City of Seattle's Landmarks board and the as a trustee of the WA Trust - I believe that not increasing heights will mean there will less reason for property owners to invest in their buildings. Increased heights in empty blocks will allow for economic return - and the stair stepping nature of the heights still protects the square and the smaller buldings in the square.

There are bad property owners now who are not investing in their buildings - and these buildings are deteriorating, we know that without an economic incentive they will continue to do so.

We also have difficulty building in the Square becuase of the water table and the soils - so it is hard to have private developers chose to infill in Pioneer Square.

I support the presrvation rules that existing and new buildings have to meet to protect the district.

I unfortunately believe that many in Seattle say they care about Pioneer Square but they don't choose to shop, work, or live here. They want it protected but don't want to come here. I am sad that those of us who do live and work here are limited in our ability to help shape our neighborhood.

@fen I don't think the issue is being against any height increases, the question is how high can buildings go relative to existing historic buildings before the historic integrity of the district is affected? Once the district loses its integrity of setting, feeling and association there is the real risk of losing listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Height increases relative to the adjacent buildings meet the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, but heights that dwarf the historic buildings impact the character and setting of the district. We recognize the decision is ultimately the Council's. I think Berger's description of our letter being a warning letter is a bit extreme. It was meant to be reminder to the Council that being on the National Register, and staying on the Register, requires maintenance of historic character. But ultimately we recognize that the determination of economics versus maintaining National Register listing is ultimately Seattle's choice.

To clarify, the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation supports increasing building heights in Pioneer Square. The question at hand is how high should the increases go? Last year DPD proposed increasing base heights in Pioneer Square to 100', with additional height (as high as 150' in one area of the historic district) available through incentive zoning. DPD's proposed heights constitute a height increase throughout Pioneer Square, in some areas nearly doubling the heights presently allowed.

Increased heights serve as a tool to encourage density. Recognizing this, the Washington Trust supports DPD's proposal. Currently, however, the council is considering height increases that go above and beyond DPD's proposal. It is the additional height we are concerned with. Many of the buildings in Pioneer Square are three, four and five story buildings. How will the introduction of newly constructed 140' buildings next to existing 40' historic structures impact the character of Pioneer Square?

When the city council began to analyze potential changes to South Downtown, one of the guiding principles was the retention and preservation of historic character. If building heights in Pioneer Square increase above those included in DPD's proposal, we run the risk of losing historic status for the Square along with incentive programs to rehabilitate buildings that accompany designation as a historic district - an unintended outcome no one wants.

The balancing act is trying to identify a reasonable increase to building heights that will encourage the development of workforce and market rate housing without jeopardizing the status of Pioneer Square as a nationally acclaimed historic district. The Washington Trust believes the height increases provided in DPD's proposal will achieve this goal.

After the bored tunnel is built, every historic building located above and nearby will deteriorate beyond repair. Like old streetcar rails will solidly work their way to the surface, the bored tunnel will shift soils above it and below old and new building foundations until they collapse. Seattle's developers expect this to happen. They care more about new development profits than historic structures. In their minds, it's somehow suggested in the US Constitution that only "property owners" have rights.

It sounds like what the Council could do is to request DPD, the neighborhood businesses and residents, the WA Trust and the WA Dept of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to work with one another to find a better solution. I am very sorry that the debate has turned into preservation vs development - that means everyone looses - the Square, the City, historic preservation. It should be preservation, revitalization and development instead.

It puzzles me that knowledgeable observers think raising height limits will help "revitalize" Pioneer Square. Let's say it happens, your property that was zoned for a five story building is now zoned for a ten story building. That's great, you can sell the property for considerably more money or develop it yourself into a larger building that produces more income. I would assume that would apply whether your property has a building on it or not. But it increases the temptation to let your (old, obsolete) building deteriorate, so that you can demolish it and build something new. Note that the windfall of added value occurs only once, mainly to present owners of property in PS. After the height limit is raised everyone pays the new, higher price.

There are areas in Seattle where lower (4-5 story) commercial buildings seem to pencil out, for example, on Roosevelt Way from 40th St to about 50th. Why do they work economically? probably because the land price is based on the lower height limit and is proportionately low. If the height limit were increased the price of the land would go up. So if this a reasonable comparison (I am no expert) raising height limits in PS will do little good for the area, just reward present day owners (they may deserve rewards) but maybe also put a nearer sunset date on Pioneer Square as an artifact.

In the last fifteen years the Pioneer Square District has seen considerable new investment. Buildings that ten to fifteen years ago were in deteriorating condition have been restored on the exteriors and rehabilitated on the interiors; examples include the Terry-Denny Building, the Oriental Building/Corona Hotel, the Washington Shoe Building, and the Collins Building. The Tashiro-Kaplan Building was renovated and expanded upward. The Cadillac Hotel is now the site of the Seattle unit of the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park. There is a new County office building on Jackson. Other proposed or anticipated changes--development of the North Lot with housing and removal of the Viaduct--will likely serve as catalysts for more investment.

As I understand the sequence of events, Seattle's Department of Planning and Development developed a proposal for increased heights in the south downtown area, including Pioneer Square. Late in the process some developers asked for considerably more height. I believe the questions Allyson Brooks is raising have to do primarily with the excessive height requested by developers, not the more limited height increases in the initial DPD analysis and proposal.

The Pioneer Square District represents the shared heritage of all citizens of Seattle. It is one of the best preserved collections of 19th century commercial buildings in the United States. Once lost to development, it would be gone forever.

Wilbur, of course the two areas are not analogous, that wasn't my point. By the way I hope you are not saying that people NOT arriving by car requires taller buildings. The specifics of the PS district certainly demand careful investment and design but I do not see how taller buildings help in meeting that challenge. Other than, of course, that the taller buildings make redevelopment more appealing as an investment and I do not see that as a benefit to the historic district. In fact, the opposite.

Awhile back, the P-I posted their collection of historic Alaskan Way photos. Before and After the seawall, there were many rail lines in various arrangements and more than one roadway. These photos should be studied for historical narrative.

After the seawall, Alaskan Way's basic arrangement (from west to east) was 4-lanes separated by a median of 2 rail lines, then a row of tight perpendicular parking, then a 2-lane frontage road embedded with 1 or 2 rail lines.

I bring this up because IMO the current design for the new Alaskan Way boulevard is wholly inadequate for managing traffic and not even close to historic. The 2-lane frontage road (Railroad Way) is necessary to separate thru-traffic from motorists trying to park. This concern applies to all AWV replacement options including the DBT and the surface boulevard options. SDOT is not doing its job.

Pioneer District's main problems are its mismanaged traffic, its lack of convenient transit service, and its delapidated and inadequate pedestrian infrastructure. Any proposed development must first address these concerns followed with modest infill. High density development will worsen traffic.

These questions remain: What is the threshold that compromises historic integrity? Who decides that the tax credits are not longer available?
Pioneer Square already has endured many modern intrusions and lost original characteristics, yet the tax incentives remain. My perception is that there is no absolute and clear line to cross, which is reinforced by the above opinions that the integrity of setting, feeling and so on "may" be compromised. Like most historic preservation issues, political will may be the determining factor.