First a note re: Crosscut in general: Does anybody proofread the articles? In this one, it should be Reuven, not Reuben Carlyle. Check out other articles today and you'll find other misspellings, etc. Not a lot, but enough to be jarring.

On the Coliseum/Key Arena, of course it should be designated an historical landmark. But my guess is that the powers behind the Sodo arena don't want it done for fear that it might somehow impede "progress" -- you know, replacing (and demolishing) a fine, usable structure with a new one, so McGinn can have his "legacy" when he is unceremoniously dumped after one failed term. The structure is a "white elephant" only because the powers that be choose to make it so by starving it to death with the Sodo competitor.

It's been said before but should be noted again: in a city that prides itself to the point of smugness on being "green" through, among other things, reuse and recycle, treating the Coliseum/Key Arena as a piece of trash that should be landfilled is the height of hypocrisy.

There is one important requirement Key Arena does not meet to be nominated for historic preservation - it is not yet 25 years old. This is not the same Washington State Pavilion or even Seattle Center Coliseum that was erected for the 1962 World's Fair. That building, the floor, the entire interior, most of the walls, the infamous leaky roof and foundation were demolished save for four massive steel trusses that hold the roof up. As Virginia Anderson said on its opening in 1995, "People think a remodel means you paint and you fix, but this is a brand-new building."

I would suggest the Center officials first decide how to re-purpose the building or site. With the prospect of a new Sodo Arena, it's days as a sports arena are probably numbered. And with I-91, funding for that purpose is problematic.

I do agree that the form of the building has been an important part of the city skyline (although it has become more and more obscured by recent construction in Lower QA) and if designation does occur someday, I hope it does not include the huge "Key Arena" signage on the roof top. That definitely wasn't a part of the building 25 years ago.

It's a fine building, but landmarking might lock it into economic decline and prevent repurposing. One of my favorite ideas for "saving" it is to put lots of uses into the below-ground areas and then to turn the ground level into a winter garden, with the famous roof floating overhead like a huge umbrella. Seattle Center needs more open space that works in rainy weather. And a winter garden would allow for lots of uses (cafes, small concerts, play equipment) set amid the greenery.

Interesting idea. Might be handy in a disaster scenario as well, presuming those windows are shatterproof glass.

An amphitheater, retain the steel trusses and half of the roof, facing into Seattle Center. Strip out darn near everything else, down to the bones.

This building seems reminiscent of the 'Googie' style that originated in Southern California in the 1930's.
The old Denny's in Ballard was debated as a building worth saving for time-capsuling a similar futuristic style.

Unfortunately, both buildings were made obsolete by either the location (Denny's) or the business of professional sports (Key).
Preserving the shell would be interesting though.

I think it's commonly understood these days that if you want to do economic harm to someone who owns an old building you proceed to nominate his/her property as "Historic". Such designation can turn a reasonable building into a guaranteed money loser and assure the owners of legal and technical invoices far into the future. But first, of course you have to spend money to fight the designation, not necessarily a negligible cost. Wishing this on KeyArena is not a good idea.

Here's a comment sent to David Brewster, from Robert Weaver:

David – I hate to say it, but your comment on the Key Arena was off mark when it comes to “economic decline and repurposing.” This is a general misperception often raised by developers that want to get rid of a Landmark. It also is a public misperception. Also, the person who said that it doesn’t meet the 25 year rule (now 50 years later) also doesn’t know what he’s talking about. As a former chair of the Landmarks Board (Seattle) and Vice-chair of the King County counterpart, I can assure you that Key Arena should qualify. The dynamic outer shell has not changed that much; Landmarks typically recognizes that buildings need to be repurposed. Many if not most have been (see Wallingford Center, Queen Anne High School, Franklin High School and many more). And many had been renovated before nomination (mainly interior, but not necessarily). It all has to do with what is designated and “controlled” relative to Landmark status. Often this is just the exterior unless there are some really important and unique interior qualities (like the Bon Marche). Also, the reason for identifying specifically what is and is not “controlled” on a building is an important step. The Board wants to bring their experience in sensitive redesign into a process so changes don’t do serious damage to the aesthetics of the building. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t allow change. There are all sorts of good (and bad) ways to readapt a building. In fact, your vision probably would fly. So please don’t perpetuate misperceptions about Landmarks.

Robert Weaver

Well, gee, I miss the old central library. One of the finest Carnegies in the country. A sad loss.